0_Preface
This report provides a detailed examination of the fundamental changes occurring in urban demographics and their
interconnection with housing. In Chapter 1, the new demographic trends and challenges are elaborated. Chapter 2 explains their
impact on the housing sector, and the need for both quantitative and qualitative research. This chapter also highlights crossEuropean processes and specific local trends, taking information from the five major European cities of Leipzig, Brno, Łódź,
Bologna and Liverpool. These cities are all members of the EUROCITIES network.
The analyses in this report are based on a set of indicators which is introduced in
Chapter 3, together with the methodological approach. Questions of data availability and
comparability are also considered. Chapter 4 looks in more detail at the five cities in terms
of demographics and housing. The research findings are supplemented by information on
local municipal projects that are designed to deal with the challenges for housing that have
been caused by demographic change.
A comparative summary, conclusions and recommendations are given in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive list of
references, which include European studies as well as reports from the individual cities under investigation. Finally, in Chapter 7,
the Addendum discusses certain aspects of the methodology.
Throughout the report, a number of graphs, tables and photos are included, as well as
information boxes (“info-boxes”), highlighting specific characteristics or interesting local
projects.

1_Ongoing demographic change new trends
and challenges
European cities face great challenges in terms of demographic change and its consequences. Demographic
changes are either already affecting European cities, or are likely to affect them in the near future, in terms of
the urban infrastructure, the social composition of the population, and the demand for services and amenities.
Demographic change also needs to be considered in terms of its impact on housing: in particular, to ensure
appropriate housing supply and adequate housing conditions for a variety of different social groups. To tackle this
task, cities need to have a sound knowledge of the ongoing demographic changes in their urban populations and
the relevance for housing and the housing market.
The fundamental characteristics of demography are universal: fertility, mortality and migration.
In very general terms, the population of a city can either increase or decrease and can tend to
rejuvenate or to age. While population growth was for a long time a major driver for urbanisation,
many European cities now face population decline (‘shrinkage’). If fertility rates are lower than
mortality rates and migration does not fill the gap, shrinkage will occur. Only cities with a positive
net migration balance and a strong economic base are currently facing ongoing population
growth.
In terms of fertility, birth rates have been declining across Europe for decades. In many European countries, fertility
is currently well below the so-called replacement level (about 2.1 children per female). In some European
countries, fertility is showing historically low values. This phenomenon, which is found in Eastern and Southern
Europe in particular, is referred to by demographers as “lowest-low fertility” (Kohler et al. 2002).
Recent analyses by the European Commission (2006) indicate a present Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.5 children per woman for the
EU-25. Only a limited increase to 1.6 children per woman is projected for these countries by 2030. Some demographers express
doubt even about this slight increase, and expect the very low fertility rate to continue.
In terms of life-expectancy, a decrease in the mortality rate in Europe, caused by better living conditions and
improved health services, is predicted to raise life expectancy by at least five years from the current level, by 2050.
Current life expectancy for European men is 75.7 years now and is projected to rise to 80.5 years by 2050; the
figures for women are 80.4 years currently, rising to 85.6 by 2050 (EC 2006).
While the trends in absolute population numbers vary throughout Europe, a further
significant demographic development in European cities is ageing. Its main causes
are declining fertility rates and increased life expectancy. Ageing is the most outstanding feature of Europe’s demography: it affects all European regions and most
of its major cities (EUROCITIES 2007, NiDi 2008). The current median age in Europe is
37.7 years, compared to a global median age of 26.4 years (CoE 2005, 13).

8 9

Facing both population decline and ageing, urban decision-makers need new strategies in urban
planning, such as innovative housing market instruments, and a new awareness of both growth
and shrinkage as acceptable urban development pathways. To mention just a few of the main
challenges: population decrease causes contradictory housing market conditions, such as lower
prices on the one hand, and vacant housing (over-supply) and decay on the other. Ageing often
creates an imbalance between available housing supply and the actual housing and services
required in residential areas. Furthermore, older people do not form a homogeneous group: there is
a variety of different life styles, social strata, states of health etc. among them.
Within this picture, the new phenomenon of rising numbers of inhabitants aged 80+ has to be considered. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Ageing in placeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
(Gober 1990, 243), i.e. a decreasing residential mobility in the course of life, but also selective mobility, can lead to particular
demographic landscapes in cities. In addition, decreasing population numbers, and a new imbalance in age structures, leads to
reduced population densities in terms of housing usage, and also reduced and changed demand for services. Yet, in spite of this,
urban amenities and infrastructure still need to be maintained. This causes rising costs and rising charges, which also affect how
satisfied people are with their housing.
These trends are accompanied by a further socio-demographic process that must be mentioned
in the context of housing: the rising number of households, and their changing structure, despite
the fact that in many places the population is shrinking. The increase in the number of households
together with changing household compositions needs intensive consideration in both quantitative
and qualitative terms, and is discussed in more detail below.

2_Demographic change
and resulting housing demand quantitative and qualitative
investigations
In order to achieve a better insight into the picture at local level, and to evaluate the consequences of the interrelated
demographic processes mentioned in the previous chapter, it is necessary to specify the indicators and drivers within the field of
housing. In our view, because it is households rather than individuals that are the main actors on housing markets, a household
perspective is indispensable. It is households that decide where to live, in what conditions, and whether to stay or to leave a
certain location. Our research demonstrates that the far-reaching changes in household structures are an important, and so far
under-researched, dimension of urban housing (Buzar et al. 2007b). Of particular importance is the increase in smaller, less stable
households, and in one-person households of both younger and older people.
For this report, we define a household as a living arrangement which can consist either of one
person living alone, or of several people living together and sharing a significant proportion of their
living costs. This definition, which is based on the official German definition of a household, serves
as a basis for our comparisons, even though some European countries use different definitions of a
household (Housing Statistics in the EU 2004, 97-100 and Addendum in Chapter 7).
In many European regions, we have been observing a diversification of household types and the growing
importance of non-traditional living arrangements: for example, one-person households, childless couples,
one-parent households, patchwork families, and flat sharing. The main trends are, firstly, significantly smaller
household sizes, and secondly, less stable household arrangements, as individuals shift from one living
arrangement to another several times during the course of their lives (for an overview: Buzar et al. 2005).
These changes, which demographers refer to as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Second Demographic Transitionâ&#x20AC;? (van de Kaa 1987 and 2004),
need to be considered because of their importance both for housing markets and for general urban development
(Ogden, Hall 2004). Changing household structures should be seen in the light of new emerging lifestyles and also
womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the workforce: these new ways of life help to generate new housing aspirations e. g. the
possibility of avoiding suburban life and also of rediscovering the advantages of inner-city housing.
The formation of new household types overlaps with ageing. The desire of older people to continue to live in their
own dwelling (and not in a residential care home) means that dwellings need to be in good physical condition with
the right facilities and without barriers to living at home e. g. with step-free access, non-slip treads, and suitable
bath equipment. Self-determined living may be achieved either by living alone or sharing a dwelling. A decisive
point for housing policies is that older inhabitants, who no longer take part in the labour market, spend more time
at home: their housing and service needs are therefore very different from those of the population of working
age.

10 11

An additional observation is that cities, and especially inner cities, lead
the way in changing household compositions. The share of one-person
households is highest in the larger cities, and it is even higher in the inner
cities. Other non-traditional household types, such as cohabitation, samesex unions and flat sharing, are also spreading faster in the cities than
elsewhere. This diversification of living and housing arrangements transforms
the affected neighbourhoods (Buzar et al. 2007b, Steinf端hrer, Haase 2008).
In line with these changes, urban experts have recently started referring to
reurbanisation again, in discussing the relationships between demographic,
residential and urban changes, and also the new attractiveness of the inner
cities across Europe (Haase, A. et al. 2005 and 2006).
In this report, our aim is to analyse the present demographic situation in five European cities and point out the challenges as well
as the concrete tasks for housing. In contrast with the EUROCITIES Demographic Change Survey 2007 (EUROCITIES 2007), this
report focuses in particular on city-specific demographic changes and their impact on local housing markets.

3_Methodological
approach
In this report, we include the following cities as case studies:

1_ Leipzig (Germany)

2_ Brno (Czech Republic)

3_ Łódź (Poland)

4_ Bologna (Italy)

5_ Liverpool (U.K.)

We decided to analyse large, so-called ‘second-order’ cities (i.e. no capital cities), in five
European countries. This decision was taken because of the importance of these ‘secondorder’ cities in terms of the future economic and social development of urban Europe.
Furthermore, these cities often receive insufficient attention on the political and scientific
agendas, in comparison with the capital cities.
In terms of their geographical coverage, the cities are located in Central Europe (Leipzig), East Central Europe (Łódź
and Brno), Western Europe (Liverpool) and Southern Europe (Bologna). Three of the cities have been experiencing
the challenges of transition from state socialism to a market-orientated political and economic system (Leipzig,
Brno and Łódź). But despite their specific contexts, all five cities face the consequences of demographic change in
general, and its impact on the field of housing in particular.
Being aware of the risks, limitations and problems of cross-national comparisons,
it has been essential to use a common set of key indicators for the analyses. They
describe the most important factors, and provide the basis for comprehensive
interpretation and cross-local conclusions.
Three conditions need to be fulfilled in selecting such indicators. Firstly, the set of indicators
should be flexible enough to respond to the various needs of stakeholders, and of results-based
management strategies, at different levels of urban local government. Secondly, the indicators
need to be appropriate for evaluating the performance, thresholds and trade-offs of any municipal
policies. Thirdly, they should not only describe the current situation, but should also be able to
integrate past and future changing dynamics (Haase, D. et al. 2008). Given this background, a set
of key indicators was selected, as shown in the following table, to describe local demography and
housing as well as their interdependencies (Fig. 3.1).

12 13

Figure 3.1_Key indicator set for demographic change and its impact on housing
Indicators of total population development

> Population development in a long-term perspective (2nd half of the 20th century)

> Population development in a short-term perspective (2000-2006/2007)

> Population projections (until 2020/2030)

Indicators of natural population development and migration

> Fertility and mortality

> In- and out-migration (= local, regional and national scales)

> Immigration and emigration (= international scale)

> Population density

> Importance of ethnic minorities/foreign population

Ageing indicators

> Share of population aged: 0-14, 15-64, 65+

> Number of persons aged: 65-79, 80+, total 65+

> Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64; = ratio of children to 100 persons of working age)

> Age dependency rate (65+/15-64; = ratio of older people to 100 persons of working age)

> Index of ageing (65+/0-14; = ratio of older people to 100 children)

> Life expectancy at birth

> Average age

Household indicators
> Total resident population

> Total number of households

> Total number of one-person households

> Share of one-person households

> Average household size

Housing indicators

> Total housing stock

> Housing vacancy

> Living space per inhabitant in mÂ˛

> Age and tenure structure of the housing stock

These key indicators are complemented by data and empirical findings from other sources, such as the Urban Audit,
local questionnaire surveys, and interviews where available. We have also used information gathered by cross-national
investigations to illustrate specific issues, while also being aware of the methodological challenges related to crossnational and cross-local investigations (Kabisch 2005, SteinfĂźhrer et al. 2008).

Some general methodological points need to be stressed:

• In many cases, the available population, household and housing market data are based on census
updates; however, in the past, censuses in Europe were carried out at different times. In addition,
recent census data do not exist for Germany.

• Changes occurring outside the administrative boundaries of each city have been as far as possible
included, most importantly in the suburban zones; however, respective information is often either
lacking or not comparable. Moreover, the data on urban-rural migration does not differentiate
between urban-suburban migration and real urban-rural migration. Thus, suburbanisation trends are
not always detectable from the statistics used.

• Data concerning migration on the local, regional and national scales (i.e. in- and out-migration) as well
as on the international scale (i.e. immigration and emigration) have to be interpreted with caution
due to incomplete representation within official statistics. Those persons who do not register as in or
out-migrants are not in the statistics. This is true in most European countries, but most strikingly in
Eastern Europe and in particular in Poland, where labour-related emigration increased rapidly after
2004 when the country became a full member of the European Union.

• The existence of different definitions and data categorisations hampers the comparison between
cities. This relates in particular to some key indicators as follows:

- household: see Addendum;

- age groups: there is inappropriate differentiation, and also too few age bands or varying age
bands;

- migration: there is not always a clear differentiation between in-/out-migration on the local,
regional and national scale, and immigration/emigration on the international scale;

- rates of housing vacancy: there are different calculation bases and different definitions of vacant
dwellings.

• For cross-European comparisons, the Urban Audit is often used, but the data sources for the
Urban Audit are not usually provided. Thus it remains unclear to what extent the data are really
comparable.

• Since statistics sometimes hide more than they reveal, there is a strong need for mixed-method
approaches. Quantitative methods have to be combined with qualitative approaches to achieve a
deeper understanding of the ongoing processes.

• To obtain more insights into the dynamics of demographic change and its consequences, repeated
investigations and particularly long-term studies are indispensable.

The findings presented in this report are, in part, based on the EU FP5 research project Re Urban Mobil (www.re-urban.com;
duration 2002–2005). We also used information and research results from the ongoing research initiative “Socio-spatial
consequences of demographic change for East Central European cities” (www.condense-project.org, duration: 2006-2009,
funded by the German Volkswagen foundation). Further information and data was collected in consultation with the
municipalities and from their websites. It has to be stressed that the research on each city was embedded in different projects.
Therefore, the volume and depth of knowledge about each of the five cities differ.

14 15

A final source for evaluating our research approach and findings was the international
conference “Socio-demographic change of European cities and its spatial consequences” which
was held in April 2008 in Leipzig. Participants from 14 European countries took part in this
conference (Großmann et al. 2008).
Table 3.1 provides an initial overview of selected demographic and housing features of the five studied cities for 2006.
Table 3.1_General features of the investigated cities, 2006 (short version)*

Leipzig

Brno

Łódź

Bologna

Liverpool

POPULATION
Total population

506,600 (31/12)

366,384 (01/07)

760,251 (31/12)

373,026 (31/12)

436,100 (30/06)

43.9

41.8

42.7

47.7

not available

Average age in years
Average household size

1.7

not available

2.20

1.9

not available

298,700

not available

not available

193,555

not available

Share of one-person households

52.2

not available

22.6

not available

not available

Life expectancy in years

79.25

73.95

72.25

not available

not available

Total number of households

HOUSING
Dwellings
Vacancy rate
(share of empty dwellings)

315,000

165,366

332,692

not available

209,344

12.7

not available

not available

not available

7.1

* The enlarged table for 2006 with additional indicators and the table for 2001 with the same features for comparison (including all references) are provided in the Addendum
(i.e. Chapter 7).

Leipzi

4_Profiles of five cities
4.1_Leipzig

Leipzig is a second-order city in eastern Germany, south-west of Berlin. It has some 500,000 inhabitants, and an

area of nearly 300 km². This is where, in October 1989, the “Peaceful Revolution” (Friedliche Revolution) started,

which initiated the fall of the Berlin Wall. For several weeks, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in the
streets of Leipzig city centre, demanding an end to state socialism. In October 1990, German reunification took
place.

In terms of its economy, Leipzig is a historical centre of commerce, and the Leipzig Fair is known

as the “mother of all trade fairs”. In recent years, the city has become an important centre for
the vehicle and automotive components industry (e.g. Porsche since 2002, BMW since 2005).
It has also developed to an international logistics node (it has been the European hub for
DHL since 2007). Leipzig also has a number of higher education and research institutes, and

currently attracts some 37,000 students. Its university is the second oldest in Germany, founded
in 1409. The city has a broad cultural heritage and hosts a number of festivals (e.g. Gewandhaus
Orchestra and the Bach or Wave Gothic Festival).
The urban appearance of Leipzig is strongly characterised by a Gründerzeit
architectural heritage of more than 12,000 residential buildings containing
110,000 dwellings (35% of the total housing stock). These ensembles date
from between 1870 and 1914: a period of economic prosperity known as the
Gründerzeit.
Demographic development
To understand the recent demographic trends in Leipzig and their
consequences for the housing market, it is necessary to consider three phases
in the city’s recent history: first, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; second,
between 1990 and 2000; and third, 2001 to the present. The Fig. 4.1.1 below
gives an initial impression of the population trends in Leipzig since 1933.
Figure 4.1.1_Leipzig – population development 1933–2007
800,000

Long-term shrinkage process in the second part of the 20th century
Before World War II, Leipzig was one of the five largest cities in Germany, with
more than 700,000 inhabitants. But as a result of World War II, the population
decreased by more than 100,000 people. After 1945, with the division of
Germany and Europe, Leipzig lost most of its former national and international
economic importance. In the 1950s particularly, mostly young, well-trained
people migrated to Western Germany. After 1961 and the construction of the
Berlin Wall, in-migration and out-migration were almost equal. Yet, between 1951
and 1989, Leipzig lost nearly 58,000 inhabitants through out-migration (32,800
people in 1989 and 1990 alone), and more than 48,000 through the natural
decline in population (more deaths than births). The 1990s were characterised
by a further dramatic loss of population: between 1990 and 1998, the population
declined by almost 100,000 people. There were three main reasons: firstly, the
radical fall in the birth rate after the reunification of Germany; secondly, the
high out-migration to western Germany, due to the poor economic situation in
eastern Germany, and, thirdly, suburbanisation (Fig. 4.1.2).

-1,676

315
-1,998

1999

2000

-7,556

-1,843

1992

-9,983

-2,551

-3,025
-7,167

-3,580

-3,726

-6,005

-2,484

-11,228

-13,000
1991

-3,919

-2,751

-3,793

-8,000

-4,143

-3,000
-3,745

Inhabitants

2,000

1,012

Figure 4.1.2_Leipzig â&#x20AC;&#x201C; natural population development and migration balance 1991â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2000

In the first half of the 1990s, 20,000 more people died than were born. In 1995,
eastern Germany as a whole showed a total fertility rate of 0.77 children per
woman, which represented the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lowest value (Statistisches Bundesamt
2003). After the mid-1990s, the fertility rate rose in eastern Germany, and also
in Leipzig itself; by 2000, the number of live births per year in the city had
increased to 7.3 per 1,000 inhabitants. But by that time, a massive suburbanisation
process had begun. From 1996 to 1998 almost 30,000 people left the city of
Leipzig for the surrounding suburbia (Stadt Leipzig 2001a).

Leipzi

In the 1990s, the ethnic composition of the city’s population saw some
decisive changes. In 1989, at the fall of the Berlin Wall, almost 20,000 foreign

nationals (in the German understanding: Ausländer, “foreigners”) lived in the city,

mainly from developing countries such as Vietnam, Mozambique and Angola.
However, most of these foreigners had to leave Germany after reunification; and

in 1990, there were only 9,000 living in the city. But by the end of the 1990s, the
number of foreign nationals had risen again, to nearly 27,000 (5% of the entire
population): mainly from Vietnam, Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Iraq. In addition,
10,000 ethnic Germans (Spätaussiedler) moved into the city from Eastern Europe
(Stadt Leipzig 1991a, 2007b).
Due to the drop in the birth rate, as well as a selective out-migration (especially of younger people), ageing has
gained a special dynamic in Leipzig. Since 1990, the share of children under 15 years old has decreased from

some 17% of the population, to a current level of less than 10%. In the same period, the proportion of people
aged 65+ increased from 16% to nearly 22%. In terms of the ageing index, in 1990 there were 91 people aged
65+ per 100 children, but by 2006 this had already increased to 220 people aged 65+ per 100 children. In line
with these changes, the average age of the population increased from 40 years old to almost 44 years old
(Table 4.1.1).
Table 4.1.1_Leipzig – demographic indicators of ageing 1990-2006

New direction of population development after 2001 – stabilisation and growth
Since the mid-1990s, the birth rate in Leipzig has been increasing, and a negative migration balance has
gradually turned into a positive one (Fig. 4.1.3). The city of Leipzig is growing mainly due to an influx of people
from other East German regions and from the areas surrounding the city (Herfert 2007). The universities and
other higher education institutions are a major factor attracting in-migrants. Between 2000/01 and 2006/07,
the number of students increased from 31,000 to 37,000. As noted above, this trend of positive net migration
has slowed down the ageing process, and the average age has stabilised at 44 years old (Table 4.1.1).
Figure 4.1.3_Leipzig – natural population development and migration balance 2001–2006

The future – moderate population growth and ongoing ageing
According to demographic projections, there will be moderate population growth until 2020. Different forecasts suggest the population will increase to some 530,000 inhabitants (+5% in comparison
with 2006). But the demographic changes in the areas surrounding
Leipzig and in other regions (mainly ageing and population shrinkage), will lead to a decrease in the potential for in-migration. Thus
in the long-term, it is very unlikely that in-migration will be able to
compensate the deficit of births in Leipzig. In the medium-term, the
population of Leipzig will certainly decrease again. Yet, the number
of older people (80+) will grow massively: according to estimations,
the number of people aged 80+ will increase from 25,000 in 2006 to
44,000 in 2020 (which represents 8% of the total population; Stadt
Leipzig 2003b).

Leipzi

Housing market – from shortage to vacancy
In contrast with the other four cities under investigation, the share of rental housing is extraordinarily high in Leipzig (about 86% of the entire housing stock;
Stadt Leipzig 2007e, 34). This specific feature did not even change in the course
of the post-socialist transition, as it did, for example, in Brno or in Łódź.

Until the early 1990s, the housing market in Leipzig was characterised by an extreme lack of

housing and by poor housing conditions, mainly with respect to the pre-1945 housing stock.

Until the 1990s, many dwellings from the Gründerzeit period had no bathroom and no separate
toilet. The residential environment was generally in a very poor state due to the prevalence of
coal fired heating.
Although some 40,000 new dwellings had been built between 1970 and 1990 (Table 4.1.2), the volume of
available housing was insufficient to meet the prevailing housing shortage. Increasing numbers of dwellings
were required, due to the rising number of households, the increasing demand for comfort, the reduction in
the size of households, and the dilapidated state of the old housing stock. At the end of the 1980s, some 25,000
to 30,000 dwellings were uninhabitable.
Table 4.1.2_Leipzig – indicators of the housing market 1971-2006

1971*

1981*

1990

1995*

1998

2000

2006

Total resident population

580,700

562,300

530,000

471,400

437,000

493,200

506,600

Total number of dwellings

216,600

240,600

258,000

268,200

282,200

315,700

315,000

Total number of households

244,500

237,300

248,500

231,700

227,900

264,100

298,700

78,400

74,500

97,800

86,200

88,500

112,200

156,000

32.1

31.4

39.4

37.2

38.9

42.5

52.2

2.7

2.3

2.0

1.8

1.5

1.6

1.6

23.1

27.3

31.8

36.7

41.4

41.7

41.2

Total number of
one-person households
Share of one-person
house-holds (%)
Average household size
Living space
per inhabitant in m²

This situation changed significantly after 1990. Supported by massive state-aid incentives, tens
of thousands of old buildings were renovated and new dwellings were built. In 2000, 14% of all
dwellings in Leipzig (i.e. 43,000 dwellings) were less than 10 years old. At the same time, around
75% of the old housing stock had been renovated. However, as the size of the population and,
more importantly, the number of households decreased between 1995 and 1998 (Table 4.1.2), a
new gap between supply and demand arose. This resulted in large housing vacancies (Kabisch
2005). In 2000, the number of unoccupied dwellings was estimated at about 60,000 (20% of the
entire housing stock; Table 4.1.3).
The incidence of vacant properties was uneven across the city and across housing market segments.
Increasingly, those parts of the city with buildings of only a basic structure and in a poor location, especially
on main roads, were affected by vacancy rates of up to 50% (Stadt Leipzig 2001c).
Since 2001, the number of households has risen with the increase in population. The
significant increase in one-person households (Table 4.1.2 above) has partly been
caused by the growing number of young people in Leipzig (mainly students and young
professionals). In terms of the housing market, it is worth noting that not all of them
actually live alone: among the younger age groups, flat sharing with several others is
very common (Steinführer, Haase 2008). The statistics show that by 2006, there were
some 65,000 one-person households in the under-35 age group, compared with only
35,000 in the year 2000.
In contrast with the increasing number of households, the number of
dwellings declined between 2002 and 2006, due to the demolition of
vacant buildings (Table 4.1.3). This demolition work is part of the statefunded programme “Urban restructuring East” (Stadtumbau Ost),
implemented from 2002 to 2009.
Table 4.1.3_Leipzig – indicators of the housing market and vacancies by period of construction
Dwellings, by period

Total number

of construction

of dwellings

Vacancy by
31/12/2002*

Vacancy by
31/12/2006*

31/12/2002

31/12/2006

Total

Share

Total

Share

Before 1918

111,958

110,296

27,000

24%

17,000

15%

1919-1948

58,042

56,876

11,000

19%

10,000

18%

1949-1990

100,228

96,804

15,000

15%

11,500

12%

After 1990

46,535

50,997

2,000

4%

1,500

3%

Total

316,763

314,973

55,000

17%

40,000

13%

Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007c; * all these numbers are estimations

differentiation has increased. Areas characterised by population growth and rejuvenation are
mainly situated in the inner city. Shrinking and ageing areas are located in the outskirts and in
former working-class neighbourhoods.

Leipzi

As a result also of the high residential mobility in the city in the 1990s, socio-spatial

Overall, the housing market of Leipzig is characterized by high levels of vacancies, moderate
rents and a relatively wide choice of housing standards and locations. In contrast with Liverpool,
for example, the general standard of housing in Leipzig is relatively high. Therefore, it is no
surprise that in the EU Urban Audit Perception Survey, Leipzig ranks first in terms of the
response to the question: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Is it easy to find good housing at a reasonable price?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; The survey also
found that 90% of the respondents were satisfied with living in Leipzig (EC 2007).
In the following sections we will look in more detail at some of the key consequences of
demographic change on housing in Leipzig. The focus is, firstly, on housing for older people,
and, secondly, on large housing estates.
Housing and quality of life for older people in housing surplus conditions:
new challenges
Older people in Leipzig represent an important target group for large housing
enterprises and for many private landlords. It is in their interest to provide
older people with conditions that guarantee a long tenancy, self-determination
and high quality of life in their homes. Housing providers increasingly recognise
their social responsibility and recently adjusted their services to reflect this e. g.
by organising care and support, establishing concierge services, or distributing
specific information for older people.
Attracting and retaining older people as a sought-after residential group, in order to reduce housing
vacancies, has become a major and sometimes controversial strategy (see info-box). A housing market with
surplus supply, and with a wide range of housing types, strengthens the position of consumers, including older
people. They have a better chance of fulfilling their housing needs than in a housing shortage.
But the advantages of a housing surplus, as described above, only represent one side of the coin. Largescale vacant housing also brings disadvantages. For older people, these disadvantages are connected with
significant changes in their daily life: long-term neighbours leave the area, social networks thin out, and vacant
buildings deteriorate or become subject to vandalism. The high mobility of the younger generation reduces
intra-generational contacts, with fewer opportunities for mutual support or to exchange experiences. The out-

migration of relatives and friends leads to the erosion of neighbourhood relationships. Family-based support
loses its importance because of the growing number of childless older people. In addition, many residents are
forced to leave their dwellings against their will, because the building they live in is planned for demolition.
Consequently, they lose their familiar surroundings, have to look for an appropriate alternative and must then
accustom themselves to new surroundings.

22 23

Info-box: Advertising campaign
“Leipzig – against deprivation in old age”
(Leipzig - Gegen Mangel im Alter)
This campaign was organised by the municipal housing enterprise LWB in
2007. It focused on the specific housing demands of older people and the
diverse and mainly well-restored housing stock in Leipzig. Older people
living in several West German regions were invited to visit Leipzig, to check
the living and housing conditions, with cheap bus travel, information events
and apartment viewings. The advertising campaign highlighted the variety
of existing dwellings available, the attractive financial packages, the relevant
housing services and the wide range of medical care and cultural amenities.

www.lwb.de, last access 14/08/2008

Therefore, new forms of communication are indispensable, together with community networks offering
reliable assistance. Self-help for older people is increasingly important in shrinking and ageing cities. In order
to support this self-help, it is necessary to strengthen the opportunities for mobility, self-responsibility and
activity for older residents. Nevertheless, the integration of young people is important too. There is a need for
more tolerance and respect for each other’s lifestyles between the generations.
In some neighbourhoods of Leipzig, and depending on the volume of housing
vacancies, modernisation and renovation is no longer subsidised. There is either no
public funding, or public funding is restricted, so there is nothing to prevent a decline
in the quality of life in these areas. Consequently, the municipality and the housing
organisations often decide to demolish housing blocks, and sometimes entire
neighbourhoods. For parts of Leipzig, there is a new phenomenon: “life-limited
neighbourhoods”, which are a characteristic of dramatically shrinking cities (Peter
2006, Kabisch, Peter 2008). A decisive feature of such neighbourhoods is the planning
decision to give up this area for residential or commercial use in the next years.
Remaining tenants are typically waiting to be re-housed because of the planned
demolition of their residential building. Noticeably, many of them tend to be older
people aged 65+, and or very old people aged 80+. Often they have been living in
the neighbourhood for decades and have strong sentiments towards their residential
environment. It is a major challenge for housing organisations and other local decisionmakers to find acceptable alternative living conditions for these people. This described
process can therefore take several months or even years, depending on the size of
the area and the complexity of the decision-making process. This urban development
challenge applies in particular to the large housing estates on the fringes of Leipzig.

While in 1990 about 20% of the entire population of Leipzig were living in large housing
estates, this proportion had decreased to about 10% by 2005. Nevertheless, today
about 50,000 people live in this type of residential area. The most important is Grünau,
located on the western edge of Leipzig. This neighbourhood was built between 1976
and 1989 for about 85,000 inhabitants, which was 17% of the whole population of
Leipzig at that time. The housing stock was very homogeneous and was restricted to
buildings constructed of large prefabricated concrete slabs (Plattenbauten). Since 1990,

Leipzi

Large housing estates facing socio-demographic change

the estate has been facing a huge loss of population (Table 4.1.4), as well as sociallyselective out- and in-migration. The consequences are significant vacant housing and
ongoing demolition.
The main causes of the significant decrease in population
in Grünau are, on the one hand, the same as for Leipzig in
general, i.e. labour-migration to western Germany, and suburbanisation. On the other hand, the population decline is
also a result of the neighbourhood’s relatively young history.
During the 1980s, mainly young families moved into the
area: they were provided with a well-equipped apartment,
often for the first time in their lives. Thus they experienced
a real improvement in their housing situation. They valued
the relatively high standard of housing, and many of them
developed a strong attachment to the area. Over the past
20 years, many of these original inhabitants aged there, “in
place”. But from 1990 onwards, their children started leaving
the neighbourhood and, in many cases, also left Leipzig.
The estate therefore lost those young people who might
have become the area’s future parents. Therefore Grünau, in
comparison with other parts of Leipzig, is now an “older”
neighbourhood, and will continue to be so. Population
projections show that only 32,000 to 40,000 people will live
there by 2020, and they will mostly be older people (Table
4.1.4). By 2020, only some 20,000 apartments will be left, i.e.
10,000 less than today. As a result, entire areas of the estate
will no longer have any residential use. The sheer scale
of this process creates the phenomenon of “life-limited
neighbourhoods” as discussed above. But, although Grünau
will become smaller both in size and in population, it will
continue to exist in the foreseeable future.

24 25

Table 4.1.4_Leipzig-Grünau – indicators of the housing market 1990/2005 and projections for 2020

1990

2005

2020*

Total resident population

85,000

48,000

32,000-40,000

Total number of households

34,000

24,000

18,000-21,000

Total number of dwellings

34,000

31,000

20,000-23,000

Share of housing vacancy

0%

20%

10%

Source: Stadt Leipzig 2007d, *projection

Figure 4.1.4: Demolition of blocks in Leipzig-Grünau

Photo: A. Peter 2008

Grünau not only needs to adapt to its shrinkage but also to its ageing population. This
entails physical changes to the housing, to meet the needs of older people: for example,
buildings with elevators, dwellings without barriers to independent living, and
appropriate services available nearby are necessary. Such measures need not be areawide, and they need not be costly. Very often, it is the small measures that are helpful.
This means that the strict high standards currently imposed for housing for older
people, which are often identical to the standards imposed on housing for disabled
people, needs to be rethought. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect all buildings to be
modified: it is predicted that the majority of residents will be physically and mentally
active to an older age than has been the case in the past.
The expectations of older people, in terms of what constitutes good housing conditions, are the same as those
of the younger generation. However, major refurbishment, not only in terms of accessibility for older or disabled
people, but also in terms of modernisation, is not viable in Grünau because of the limited resources of both
the housing organisations and the residents. Many landlords suffer from high vacancy rates and therefore have
limited financial resources. Refurbishing the apartments is only affordable if long-term use can be guaranteed,
but of course such a guarantee cannot be given. This situation affects the residents: their tenancies are
insecure, and they face rising costs. They want to stay in their existing dwellings, in familiar surroundings, and
continue to pay rent at the current level. But due to the increase in vacant housing, social networks diminish,
and the continued existence of their homes becomes unclear. In addition, both relocation and high-cost
refurbishment means rising housing costs.

1

Leipzi

Information given by the representatives of the Department of European and International Affairs and the Department of Urban Regeneration and Residential Development of the City of Leipzig, 25/08/08.

How does the City of Leipzig deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?1

The City of Leipzig pursues an integrated urban development strategy. This includes measures and projects
designed to stabilise the social balance of the city’s neighbourhoods. The aim is to discourage out-migration and
to promote the social and economic wellbeing of all groups of inhabitants. The key local target areas are the former

working-class neighbourhoods in the eastern and western parts of Leipzig (the “Soziale Stadt” and “URBAN II”
programmes, respectively), and also the large Grünau housing estate (the “Soziale Stadt” programme).
Specific measures have been developed for the urban renewal districts, the redevelopment areas, and the conservation of the city’s historic architecture, including its
monuments and listed buildings.
These specific measures include the following:

- the Selbstnutzerprogramm: to provide cheap residential property in the city
to specific target groups of owner-occupiers: young families and older people
(50+),

- the renovation of kindergartens and schools: to ensure high quality childcare

- diverse measures: to upgrade the residential environment and improve public

and education, especially in deprived neighbourhoods,
space and buildings for all age groups.
A specific example is the Wächterhäuser scheme. Wächterhäuser literally means
‘houses with a guard/guardian’. This scheme is an initiative of the HausHalten
association, founded in 2004, and is supported by the City of Leipzig. The goal
of the Association is to preserve endangered buildings and to find new uses for
these buildings on a non-commercial basis. The background to the initiative is the
concentration of listed but vacant buildings from the Gründerzeit period, that are
located on major roads, and which are important for urban cohesion. The project
provides an alternative to the usual rental market, and attracts interest from people
with ‘alternative’ lifestyles and different living requirements from the ‘norm’, who are
not catered for by typical rental conditions e.g. students, young professionals or
artists. The occupants become the ‘guardians’ of the building. Their presence helps
to prevent vandalism, to limit weather damage, and to ensure general maintenance.
In most cases, the legal owners of the buildings allow the users to inhabit the
flats rent-free. The basic premise of the initiative is that the new residents give
the whole neighbourhood an image of openness and originality. As a result, the
neighbourhood is likely to attract more inhabitants.
The City of Leipzig now has a new integrated urban development scheme which covers the next decade or so,
known as “City 2020 – redesigning the future” (Stadt 2020 – Zukunft neu gestalten). Demographic change is one
of its major topics.

26 27

Brn

4_Profiles of five cities
4.2_Brno
Brno is the second largest city in the Czech Republic, with almost 370,000 inhabitants
living in an area of 230 km². As the regional capital of South Moravia, it also serves as a
supra-regional centre of administration and justice for the Czech Republic. In addition,
Brno is the most important trade fair and exhibition centre in East Central Europe. In
the past 20 years, Brno’s tertiary, or service, sector has gained significance. Within the
context of population and housing market development, also Brno’s function as a
centre of education, science and research needs to be highlighted; and the fact that
there are five public universities with more than 65,000 students shows how important
the education sector is for the city. In the following sections we look more closely into
recent demographic and housing market changes in Brno.
Demographic development

After World War II, from 1945 onwards, the population of Brno grew steadily (Fig. 4.2.1). This trend lasted until 1993
when the peak population reached 390,000. In-migration was the driving force of this population growth. Even in
the 1980s, when there was already a natural population decline, net migration still outweighed the natural decline
(Table 4.2.1).
Table 4.2.1_Brno – natural population development and migration balance 1951–1990

1951-1960

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1951-1990

total

Natural population development

15,675

3,676

8,978

-2,605

25,724

Migration balance

13,366

22,294

22,866

23,444

81,970

Total population development

29,041

25,970

31,844

20,839

107,694

Source: ČSÚ 2006

Between 1994 and 2006, Brno’s population decreased (Fig. 4.2.1 and 4.2.3). In 1994, positive net migration still
compensated for the natural decline. But as out-migration increased during the 1990s, this led to a net outwardmigration.

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Firstly, out-migration caused population loss: the number of people moving out of the city doubled between
2000 and 2002 and then stabilised (to between 6,900 and 7,900) up until 2006. During that time, the number
of people moving into the city also doubled, but because smaller numbers of people were involved, there
was a net out-migration between 2000 and 2006. Out-migration during this time was mostly caused by
growing suburbanisation which had started to become significant in 1999/2000 (see info-box below). Suburbanites are predominantly aged between 20 and 35.

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The second main demographic trend in terms of population loss during this time was the long-term natural
population decrease. Only recently has Brno experienced a positive population increase again (Fig. 4.2.3).

Info-box: Suburbanisation in Brno: a recent phenomenon
As with other European cities, Brno has seen the suburbanisation of retail outlets, services, industries and
housing. This trend has intensified since 1999, with significantly increasing numbers of people moving to
suburbia and the urban hinterland. Fig. 4.2.2 shows the increase in population around Brno, and the loss of
population mainly from the inner city (and less, for example, from the large housing estates). Between 2001
and 2003, there was a net out-migration to the suburbs of some 5,000 people (Table 4.2.2). Municipal experts
estimate a loss of about 20,000 inhabitants to suburbia since 1990.

Suburbanisation is socially and demographically selective. Mostly, it is families with higher incomes and
qualifications who move to suburbia, looking for detached houses in rural surroundings. In effect, the inner
city loses facilities and inhabitants, and the city faces spatial deconcentration. Suburbanisation leads to
growing urban infrastructure costs, more commuters and traffic, and increasing socio-spatial differentiation
and fragmentation. But problems also arise in the suburban locations. For example, the social and physical
infrastructure is burdened with rapidly rising demand; and social tensions between established inhabitants
and new inhabitants can occur due to lack of integration.
Suburbanisation has partly been caused by a demand for new homes due to housing shortages and lack
of available rental dwellings within the city. Until recently, both the government and banks supported the
construction of new homes with cheap finance.
More recently, developers changed their strategy and began to build homes for
the middle classes, so that suburban housing has become more affordable for a
greater range of people. In the last few years, the supply of cheap public finance
has decreased and suburbanisation has levelled off (Maier 2001; Maas 2007).

Finally, a specific form of suburbanisation in the Czech Republic is the upgrading of weekend homes into permanent residences.

Brn
Fig.4.2.2_Comparison of population between 1991 and 2001

!

&*+"/0#

&'"#

-./0#,

&'"#4-("0#,

!"#$%#

1#2#"3"
&'()*+,
!

S ources: VCRR MU 2005; MMB, Department of Planning and
Development. We are grateful to the Institute of Geonics (AV ČR v.v.i.),
Brno, and to Dagmar Haase (UFZ) for information and technical
assistance.

Table 4.2.2_Migration balance between Brno and its surrounding districts
District

1991-1995

1996-2000

2001-2003

$! "!

1991-2003
total

Brno Venkov

-667

-2,674

-3,871

-7,212

Blansko

-22

-378

-304

-704

Břeclav

161

-196

-126

-161

Hodonín

202

97

17

316

Vyškov

-116

-750

-637

-1,503

Znojmo

100

-113

-159

-172

Total

-342

-4,014

-5,080

-9,436

#! %&

30 31

According to Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ) data, the first time the number of inhabitants increased
in the new millennium was between 2006 and 2007: to a population of 368,533 people (Fig. 4.2.1
above). Other data sources (ISEO registry of the Czech Ministry for Interior) show the timing of this
first population increase as occurring earlier: in 2004 (see also Addendum).
Figure 4.2.3_Brno – natural population development and migration balance 1991-2006

Brn
The recent growth in population was caused by three main factors: an increasing number of births;
stable mortality rates (between 4,200 and 3,800 deaths annually); and a lower negative or even a
slight positive migration balance than in earlier years. Taken together, the number of inhabitants of
Brno grew by 1,853 (0.5%) in 2007 in comparison with end of 2006 (ČSÚ 2008). But the increasing
number of births, which is to be observed all over the Czech Republic, is likely to be a short-term
phenomenon. The large birth cohorts from the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s,
which were the result of policies designed to raise the birth rate, are now at the stage of starting a
family. Subsequent birth cohorts, during the 1990s, are significantly smaller: so when these 1990s
birth cohorts enter their reproductive years, there are likely to be fewer births. While these trends
are mirroring general demographic trends in the Czech Republic (CoE 2005, 76; VID, PBR 2008), they
have to be seen in the context of the city’s specific situation, including its strong Roma community
(see the second info-box below).
The two main demographic trends for Brno, net out-migration and decreasing fertility, have
resulted in changes to the population structure of the city, most significantly to the age profile
(Table 4.2.3). Between 1991 and 2006, the average age increased from 37.9 years to 41.8 years. While
the number of children (inhabitants aged 0-14 years) declined, the number of older people (aged
65+) increased. In 2006, older people exceeded children by 13,000. The index of ageing (shown
in Table 4.2.3) provides a clear indicator of the overall ageing process. In addition, the absolute
number of people aged 75+ increased between the census years (1991–2001) by about 0.8%. Their
share of the entire population is currently almost 7%. In this context, it is likely that Brno’s future
service provision, social infrastructure, and housing will need to be modified to meet changing
demand. We expect this tendency to strengthen further and become a major factor in Brno’s urban
development.
Table 4.2.3_Brno – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006

1991

1996

2001

2006

Percentage of total population aged:
0-14

19.4

16.4

14.1

12.9

15-64

66.4

68.5

70.2

70.5

65+

14.3

15.1

15.7

16.5

Number of persons aged:
75+*

22,882

not available

25,165

not available

65+

55,552

58,600

58,717

60,616

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)

29.2

23.9

20.1

18.3

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)

21.6

22.1

22.4

23.4

Index of ageing (65+/0-14)

73.9

92.3

111.6

127.8

Average age

37.9

39.1

40.6

41.8

Source: ČSÚ 2007; * only available from census data

32 33

In spite of population losses and the declining number of younger people,
educational levels have changed: the absolute number (and share) of
people with university degrees or similar higher educational achievements
increased in the inter-census period. Between 1991 and 2001, i.e. before
suburbanisation took pace, the number of people with low formal
qualifications has decreased. (We expect this to change in the next census.)
In this context, students are an important residential group in the city although they are not always registered citizens, as will be discussed below.
At the public universities in Brno, the number of students increased from
45,000 in 2002/2003 to 65,000 in 2006/2007 (ČSÚ, Regional Office Brno 20022007). Since students are no longer just concentrated in halls of residence
but increasingly share flats all over the city, this large student group has
significant effects on the housing market. The student population also
affects the demand for services, transport and the cultural, technical and
social infrastructure (Steinführer, Haase 2008, 20).
Population projections
In 1993 and 1998 the Czech Statistical Office (ČSÚ) provided projections for future population changes in Brno
(Table 4.2.4). Although not strictly comparable, the table also shows the only population projections for the city
that have been published more recently. These were compiled by the Centre for Regional Development of the
Masaryk University Brno (VCRR MU), and based upon the medium scenario of the earlier ČSÚ projections which
they modulated to recent developments (Table 4.2.4).
Table 4.2.4_Brno - population projections 2000 - 2030

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

ČSÚ 1993

386,161

383,811

378,501

370,696

361,647

-

-

ČSÚ 1998

382,962

378,426

374,523

369,119

361,647

-

-

-

370,388

369,620

368,783

366,180

361,143

353,811

VCRR MU 2002

Source: VCRR MU 2005 (also for ČSÚ projections)

According to these two sources, the population of Brno is predicted to decrease over the
medium-term. However, recent population figures for the city show that the changes are
likely to be even more marked than the projections indicate. Although the modified projection compiled by VCRR MU for the year 2020 was calculated at 366,180, in fact, the population had already fallen to this level by 2006 (the actual 2006 population was 366,680).
Thus, both sets of available population projections are probably too high, due to an underestimation of the levels of out-migration.

Brn
Concerning ageing, in 2006, the actual share of people aged 65+ was 16.5% (Table 4.2.3).
The modified projection compiled by the VCRR MU predicts that the number of people
aged 65+ years will have increased to 91,000 by the year 2030, representing 26% of the
total population of Brno. Meanwhile, the proportion of children (aged 0-14) is predicted to
decrease from 13% down to less than 11% (40,000). Despite the inevitable hypothetical
nature of these projections, nevertheless, it seems likely that there will be two overall future
trends for population changes in the city: significant ageing and moderate shrinking.
Households and housing market: from problems of quantity to problems of quality
The numbers and structures of households are key indicators for understanding the housing market. Therefore, before looking at the Brno housing market itself, we need to consider changes in household numbers and structures
in the city. Unfortunately, this information is only available from the censuses of 1991 and 2001. Therefore, it does
not reflect the exact current situation. Yet, already by 2001, the figures show a noticeable tendency towards more
diversity and towards smaller units, which resulted in an increasing number of households, in spite of a shrinking
population (+1%; Table 4.2.5).
Table 4.2.5_Brno – indicators of the housing market 1991 and 2001 (census data)

1991

2001

Total resident population

388,296

376,172

Total number of dwellings

158,555

165,366

Total number of households

165,880

167,740

Total number of one-person households

51,573

55,788

Share of one-person households (%)

31.1

33.3

Average household size

2.34

2.24

Living space per inhabitant in m²

16.1

17.9

Source: ČSÚ 2003

However, not all of these households occupy a separate dwelling: in 2001 the Czech
statistics show a difference of 2,000 between the number of dwellings and the
number of households only for Brno. In the Czech research literature, this
phenomenon is known as “households which don’t live on their own”, nebydlící
domácnosti (e.g. Lux 2001, 34), and rooted in decades of housing shortage (see also
below).

co-habiting couples with or without children)2 shrank by about 12% between 1991 and 2001. In contrast, the
proportion of one-parent households (“incomplete families”) increased: from 19% in 1991 to 25% in 2001. At this time,
one-person households already accounted for one in three households in the city. Also, the variety of household types
grew in this inter-census period. For example, the share of multi-person households comprising unrelated people
increased from 0.4% to 2.9%. These include both voluntary flat-sharers, and, due to the specific housing-market
situation, involuntary flat-sharers who could not find their own housing. In the future, the number of households is
likely to increase further, together with a growing demand for housing.
The housing market of Brno is characterised by three main segments: tenement housing
from before 1948; system-built housing stock from the 1960s onwards (paneláky); and
detached and semi-detached houses (Table 4.2.6). In 2001, about 33% of the housing stock
was owned by the municipality (46% in 1991); 27% was possessed by owner-occupiers; 22%
was held by housing cooperatives; and 14% was owned by newly established associations
of owner-occupiers. In the inter-census period, the mean dwelling size grew by about 2.9
m² to 44 m² (i.e. 17.9 m² per capita, which is less than half the mean housing space per
person in Germany).
Table 4.2.6_Brno – indicators of the housing market (census data 2001)
Housing stock from before 1946

Between 1991 and 2001, the total housing stock grew by just 4% (+6,800 dwellings; Table
4.2.5 above); and the number of permanently occupied dwellings remained stable (+53
dwellings). This is in contrast to the slightly increased number of households. As found
across the entire Czech Republic, in Brno in 2001, the number of households was higher
than the number of dwellings available (2,374 more households than dwellings). This is not
surprising, as for many decades, the housing market in Brno has been characterised by a
housing shortage. One of the most important strategies to solve the problem of housing
shortage is the ongoing densification of already densely built areas, be it in the inner city or
in the large housing estates (Fig. 4.2.4).

2

In connection with these trends, the number of what the Czech statistics call “complete families” (married or

T he Czech Republic statistics define married and cohabiting couples with and without children as “complete” families. This is in contrast with the more common definition of the family as a living arrangement
of at least two generations, one of them being children or teens.

34 35

Brn
Yet the situation is much more complicated than this, due to a variety of legal, economic and historical
constraints (Kostelecký 2000; Steinführer 2004). In 2000, the Czech housing market researcher, Martin Lux,
found an “artificial housing shortage” (Lux 2000, 23) across the whole Czech Republic, a rather unusual
assessment at that time. However, in 2001, when housing shortage was still the main focus of the country’s
housing policies, also the authors of the municipal Housing Strategy for Brno stated that, quantitatively, the
housing supply in the city was sufficient (MMB 2001, App. 1, 1).

In addition, the housing market is highly fragmented. In Brno, as in the whole Czech
Republic, rental housing became increasingly marginalized in the post-socialist
period (Steinführer 2004). Due to a complexity of different causes, the municipal
housing sector (i.e. dwellings owned by the municipality: 33% of the entire Brno
housing stock in 2001) is almost inaccessible to people looking for a flat: at least,
not legally accessible. This is due to the fact that sitting tenants are strongly
protected by law. By the ‘dekret na byt’ (a quasi-contract from the state-socialist
period), tenants have similar rights to those of owner-occupiers. This dekret can
be inherited or traded. Furthermore, there are still fixed rents in the municipal
housing market segment, and prices in this sector have only been raised slightly
during the last 17 years in comparison with other housing market segments. This
has kept renovation activities relatively low. Only for newly constructed houses
and for rental contracts starting after 1990, are rents subject to market prices.
Therefore, newcomers to the housing market have four choices: they either have to
look for owner-occupier housing; or they have to find a home to rent in the very small
private rental housing market; they can try to buy a dekret or they rent in the
widespread grey and black markets.

36 37

Another related phenomenon, already mentioned above, is the fact that in many cases,
different generations, or even different households of unrelated people, are forced
to share one dwelling. Together with the low average living space per person, this
indicates the potential for further rising demand. Finally, as also mentioned above,
while the overall number of dwellings remained almost stable between 1991 and 2001,
the number of detached and semi-detached houses rose by 2,406 in the same period.
This was accompanied by decreasing population densities in inner-city districts, and
increasing densities in the housing estates, which are mostly at the urban fringe. This
is another consequence of the ‘intra-urban’ suburbanisation: the trend for relocation
within the administrative borders of Brno. However, residential suburbanisation has
increased since the 2001 census, but there is no data available on this. (It is the censuses
which provide the most useful and the only comprehensive information about housing
market structures).
The findings discussed so far are mainly based upon census data from 2001. From ongoing qualitative
investigations within the conDENSE research project, we know that there have been several significant changes
in the housing market in recent years, particularly since the accession to the European Union in 2004:

– Firstly, the Czech Republic, and in particular its largest cities, Prague and Brno, experienced a booming

– Secondly, there was a considerable increase in the privatisation of municipal housing to sitting tenants: this

property market after 2004, with rapidly increasing prices.
mainly affects inner-city tenement housing. While in 1999 the City of Brno still owned 93% of its original
housing stock (1991=100%), this share has rapidly decreased in recent years. By 2002, the municipality owned
87% and by 2006 only 68% of the original housing stock (Chlupová et al. 2008, 18). However, in contrast with
other Czech cities, the privatisation of publicly-owned housing in Brno is relatively slow since the municipality
does not favour a give-away privatisation of its entire housing stock.

– The
final point to make here is that after the reform of housing allowance in 2004, students became
decisive players in the housing market. Since then, all students, regardless of their housing status, have been
eligible for a housing allowance. This has opened up a completely new housing market segment to them:
private rental housing, be it legally or illegally. Often, municipal renters and owner-occupiers do not live in
the dwelling for which they are on the tenancy or property agreement; instead they rent the dwelling out
(sublet it), either formally or informally, to other people who are not on the tenancy agreement. This is a
further reason why official population numbers should be treated with caution (see also Chapter 4.3 on Łódź
and the Addendum).
From these last points we conclude that there is an urgent need for inter-census
monitoring of the housing market. The City of Brno already once made good experience
with such investigations when conducting the project “Housing, an integral approach”
between 1999 and 2002, which, in cooperation with Utrecht (a member of EUROCITIES),
resulted in the Brno Housing Strategy 2001 (MMB 2001 and 2002; City of Brno/
Municipality of Utrecht 2002).

Brn
Info-box: Romanies in Brno: spatial concentration, social exclusion and promising local projects*
The population of the eastern part of Brno’s inner city includes a Roma minority, most of whom migrated to Brno from Slovakia in the
1990s. The most recent Brno census (2001) shows just 374 people are Romanies. However, the size of this ethnic minority group is
significantly higher, as qualitative research shows that many will have categorised themselves as Czech or Slovak nationality. Local
estimations range from 10,000 people to a likely overestimation of 35,000 people.

The Roma minority has a higher proportion of younger people than the
Brno population as a whole, and also a higher birth rate, although this has
decreased during the last few years. As a whole, the group shows a higher
average number of children per woman and earlier childbearing.

In everyday conversation, in the media and even in planning debates,
the main term used for their neighbourhood is “the Bronx”, a clearly
defined area that is also on the mental map of Brno. For the Czech
majority, these parts of the city represent the least sought-after areas in a
wide range of residential locations. A local real estate agent told us that
in terms of house hunting neither the customer nor the agent would even mention this area as a possible place to live. It is common
knowledge that this is “the Gypsies’ home”, even though Czech people also live there, mainly older people with lower socio-economic
status.

The spatial concentration of Romanies in some of the areas with Brno’s poorest housing conditions goes hand-in-hand with social
exclusion: the one reinforces the other. Many Roma have little or no formal education and are either unemployed (about one third of all
unemployed in Brno are Roma people, i.e. circa 4,000 persons) or work in unskilled and thus badly paid jobs.

Yet, a number of initiatives are helping to regenerate the eastern part of Brno’s inner-city area. In 1991, the Museum of Roma Culture
was founded: the first in the Czech Republic and, possibly, the first in Europe. In 2000, a permanent exhibition was opened to the public
(www.rommuz.cz). Another project which ran from 1999 to 2003, initiated by NGO Drom and supported by the municipal government
and the Ministry of Regional Development, worked to improve housing conditions by refurbishing two highly dilapidated tenement
houses in the area. The work was carried out by people who owed rent to the municipality, enabling them to cancel their debt and move
into an improved home.

How does the City of Brno deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?3
For the City of Brno, ageing of the population and suburbanisation are highlighted as the biggest local problems
at present. A limited supply of affordable and attractive housing within the inner parts of the city is leading to outmigration of the population, to the outskirts of the city or to areas outside the city boundaries. But these people
still travel into Brno for work, education, shopping, health care, culture and sporting activities. A negative consequence of commuting is the intense traffic, causing environmental pollution. Furthermore, household structures
are changing: in particular, the number of one-person households is increasing. Due to these trends, the City of
Brno is planning to increase the supply of different types of housing, as well as increasing the land available for
housing: the local land-use plan is currently under negotiation. To address the requirements of the ageing process, the Social Service Plan (by 2009) contains concrete strategies in the field of care for older people and other
vulnerable groups.
According to key municipal planning documents (e.g.
City of Brno Strategy, Master Plan, Communal planning,
General housing plan/Generel bydlenĂ­), the City of Brno
actively supports development projects which improve
the quality of the city. The specific strategy is based on
three pillars with specific aims:
- Quality of life: improving the attractiveness of life

cultural events; by ensuring public safety; and by
adopting effective social and health care policies.
â&#x20AC;&#x201C; R esearch, development, innovation and education:
preparing conditions that attract and keep human
capital in the city, by ensuring an infrastructure
for research, development and innovation; and by
fostering innovative policies in the field of human
resources development.
â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Local economic development: creating an environment in Brno that will attract business enterprises.

3

housing, more leisure and sports activities, and more

Information given by the representative of the Foreign Relations Department of the City of Brno, 31/07/08.

within the city, by offering a greater variety of

Łód

4_Profiles of five cities
4.3_Łódź
Łódź is the third largest city in Poland after the capital city of Warsaw and the city of Kraków.
For a long time, Łódź was Poland’s second largest city, but due to significant population losses
over the last two decades, it was overtaken by Kraków in 2007 (Kraków 757,000 vs. Łódź 753,000
inhabitants). Łódź is one of Poland’s second-order cities, and fulfils important administrative,
economic and cultural functions for the whole region (voivodeship).
Demographic development from growth to decline

Following the severe population decline and the loss of its multi-ethnic past as a result of World War II (the Holocaust,
and the resettlement of the German population), Łódź saw steady population growth during state socialism between
the 1950s and the 1980s (Fig. 4.3.1). This was driven by high birth rates as well as by labour migration. The highest
population was reached in 1984/85; since then, population has been decreasing. The 1988/1989 growth was due to
the administrative enlargement of the city’s boundaries. Population loss accelerated during the 1990s: from 1988 to
2006, the city lost almost 100,000 inhabitants (11%) – a striking story of decline.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Łódź was a textile city (the ‘Manchester of Poland’ – in the same
way that Brno was the ‘Manchester of Moravia’). During the two decades or so after 1945, the
city experienced a new era of economic prosperity as the centre of the Polish textile industry.
By 1970, about 60% of all employees worked in the industrial sector (228,000 persons). But by
1980, this proportion had decreased to 50% (204,000 persons) and by 1990, it was down to 38%
(93,000 persons) (Jakóbczyk-Gryszkiewicz 1997, 115). In the 1980s, the decline in the textile
industry in Łódź was already causing population loss. From the 1990s onwards, the economic
structure of the city changed significantly, in favour of the service sector (Riley et al. 1999, 26).

40 41

Current shrinkage due to natural decline and out-migration
Recent population decline in Łódź can be attributed to two causes: firstly, more deaths
than births, and secondly, losses do to out-migration and emigration (Fig. 4.3.2).
From 1988 to 2002, the general fertility rate (GFR) in Łódź decreased from 39.8 to 26.2
births per 1,000 women (aged 15-49). In that period, taking 1988 as the baseline of
100%, the dynamic fertility rate indicator decreased to 67%. Much of this decline in
the fertility rate has been due to postponement of childbearing, and is thus typical of
reproductive behaviour in the whole of Poland and in other post-socialist countries
(Okólski 2006, 105-11, Slany 2007). In Łódź, the difficult economic situation after 1989
further contributed to this trend. Recent data, however, indicate the first symptoms of a
meantime “recovery”, i.e. a rising fertility rate.
In addition to the natural population decline (the surplus of deaths over births),
population decline in Łódź has also been caused by out-migration. The numbers
involved are lower than for natural decline, but they are made up of both inter-regional
migration and low-level suburbanisation (Haase, A. et al. 2007, 156-7). Over the last
decade, from 1999 onwards, Łódź has seen a net out-migration every year (Fig. 4.3.2).
Figure 4.3.2_Łódź – natural population development and migration balance 1990–2006

Łód
Between 1991 and 2006, the outflow of people from Łódź to other regions in Poland gradually increased while the
inflow of people remained more or less stable (Table 4.3.1). The data also shows fewer people moving in from rural
areas. This can be explained in particular by the high unemployment rates in Łódź during the 1990s. In that period the
city also lost its status as an important Polish centre for in-migration from other regions of Poland. The official figures
for Łódź show a net international emigration throughout the entire period, with more inhabitants moving to other
countries than foreign nationals moving in. However, the numbers of people involved are low (between 26 and 228
people per year: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 64). In comparison with other large cities in Poland, Łódź and Poznań
were the only cities showing a negative migration balance for the whole period between 1995 and 2005 (Bierzyński,
Węcławowicz 2008, 64 and 66). In terms of the total number of in-migrants between 1988 and 2002, the majority
originated from other urban areas (59%), a minority were from rural areas (34%) and a very low percentage came from
abroad (5%).
Table 4.3.1_Łódź – inter-regional migration 1991-2006
Year
1991

In-migration

Out-migration

from urban areas

from rural areas

to urban areas

to rural areas

2,443

2,147

2,401

1,056

1996

2,316

1,758

2,317

1,696

2001

2,206

1,463

2,265

1,975

2006

2,616

1,609

2,900

2,720

Source: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008

Yet, official migration statistics need to be interpreted with caution. They often give an
incomplete representation of the true picture, as their quality depends heavily on the
willingness of migrants to register their actual behaviour. In Poland, the official regional
population registers are regarded as significantly incomplete (Kowalski, Śleszyński 2006,
111). So the numbers reflect just part of the true migration process. This relates especially
to seasonal and long-term labour-related emigration to Western Europe, but also to
students and young professionals who have moved to the city but are still registered
at their parents’ residence. Qualitative research carried out by the authors in Łódź and
other Polish cities over the last few years (as part of the conDENSE project), showed
strong evidence of the phenomenon of incomplete data. Moreover, the data on urbanto-rural migration do not differentiate between urban-to-suburban migration on the
one hand, and urban-to-rural migration on the other. Thus, suburbanisation that has
increased for Łódź during the past decade cannot be detected from the official
statistics.
Neither are there data on intra-urban migration (which, for example, is also a problem in Brno). The rates of population
change within single districts of Łódź between 1988 and 2002 were at a low level (mean value 5%). It was only the inner city that displayed a higher level of population change between 1988 and 2002 (10%; see also below).

42 43

Ageing and changing household structures
Over the last few decades, the city of Łódź has faced a continuous and significant
process of ageing. This can be attributed to various factors. Firstly, there has been a drop in
birth rates and an increase in life expectancy (Kurek 2008). Secondly, the postponement
of childbearing has played a role. Thirdly, the city has seen a net out-migration of
people of working age (and thus a decreasing share of this age group) because of high
unemployment. Fourthly, suburbanisation4, although not on a very high level, has
mainly involved younger and middle-aged groups moving out to the suburbs. These
processes have resulted in an accelerating ageing process (Table 4.3.2).
Table 4.3.2_Łódź – demographic indicators of ageing 1988-2006

Sources: GUS 2008, authors’ calculations; * census data; ** the mean age could in reality be slightly higher since only aggregate data are available for the 85+
age group.

The index of ageing (i.e. the ratio of older people to children)
increased from 67 in 1988 to 149 in 2006. In the same
period, the share of children decreased from 19% to 11%,
while the percentage of the population of working age
(15-64) remained more or less stable (68% in 1988 vs. 72%
in 2006). The percentage of older people (aged 65+) grew
from 13% in 1988 to 17% in 2006. Consequently, the average
age also increased. Looking at the population aged between
15 and 64 years, the share of the younger age groups (to 44
years) decreased, while the share of those aged between 45
and 64 years grew considerably (Bierzyński, Węcławowicz
2008, 20).

4

43,318

To a small degree, suburbanisation already occurred before the beginning of post-socialist transition.

Number of persons aged:
75+

Łód
In contrast to the city’s significant 7.7% loss of population from 1988 to 2002 (during which time the number of
inhabitants declined by 66,000; Fig. 4.3.1 above), the number of households increased by 3%. This was due to a
significantly growing number of small and, in particular, of one-person households (+40%; cf. Table 4.3.3 and
Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 31). The share of one-person households in the inner city reached 40% in 2002. At the

5

We are grateful to our colleague Adam Bierzyński from the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw for the information provided.

same time, the share of bigger households decreased (households with 3+ people declined from 44% in 1988 to 36%
in 2002). These changes had to do, not least, with changing family structures and family size. During the inter-census
period (1988-2002), the number of one-child families increased, while the number of families with two or more children
decreased. Among families with parents aged <29 years, the number of one-child families increased by 5%, while the
number of families with two children decreased by 6%. This gives evidence for the increase in mean age at first birth
(due to the postponement of childbearing).
Table 4.3.3_Łódź – indicators of the housing market 1988 and 2002 (census data)
Total resident population

1988

2002

854,261

789,313

Total number of dwellings

313,764

316,206

Total number of households

342,235

351,952

Total number of one-person households

88,792

124,601

Share of one-person households (%)

25.9

35.4

Average household size

2.45

2.34

Sources: Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, authors’ calculations

Non-traditional household types also increased in importance, but these are only partly
covered by the statistics. Recent qualitative research in Łódź, in the course of the conDENSE project, showed evidence of a wide variety of households. They range from singles,
to cohabiting couples, to flat sharers, and to even more complex, multi-household
arrangements: we found, for example, a flat owned by a single person, and inhabited by
him and a cohabiting student couple as unregistered subtenants, or flats that are shared
by two or more family households. Also, the major difference between the number of
inhabited dwellings and the number of households (Table 4.3.3) provides indirect evidence
of such single-dwelling multi-household arrangements. The complexity behind the figures
is, however, not detectable in the statistics. Even though there is some information about
“non-family, multi-person households” in the Łódź census, it is impossible to clearly identify
them as student flat-sharers or young professionals, as they could alternatively comprise
unrelated older people, or perhaps impoverished people sharing a flat for economic
rea-sons. Moreover, our research also provides evidence that the number of students living
in Łódź, which is an increasingly important factor in the local housing market, is considerably
underestimated.5 Qualitative research on these aspects is therefore indispensable: it gives
clear evidence that official statistics often unveil only part of the complex story of urban
socio-demographic change.

44 45

Socio-demographic change in the inner city
Over the last decade, and almost undetected until now, the
inner city of Łódź (district Śródmieście) has undergone a
process of repopulation by non-traditional households. This
has led to a younger age profile, or, at least, has countered
the ageing process. For a long time, the inner city of Łódź
had been especially affected by population losses. In
absolute numbers, the population decreased from 99,000
in 1990 to 79,000 in 2005: a fall of 20% in relative terms
(Bierzyński, Węcławowicz 2008, 11).
In 1988, the inner city had a comparatively “older” profile than the total city, with a higher proportion of older people
and a lower proportion of younger people. But by the late 1990s, this trend started to change. Already the last census
(2002) showed higher numbers of young people and lower numbers of older people in the inner city, compared with
the city as a whole. Moreover, Śródmieście is characterised by a higher in-migration of young residents: at the overall
city level, just 15% of all residents in their twenties had in-migrated to Łódź between 1989 and 2002; but for the inner
city, over double that proportion, 33%, of all residents aged 20-30 had in-migrated between 1989 and 2002. According
to our research, this trend has intensified in recent years. We found evidence of a significant number of unregistered
newcomers living in the inner city for at least a limited period. These are mainly younger people in education, but also
include early-stage professionals: they intend to stay in the inner city for a certain period of time, and tend to live in
transitory and fluid housing arrangements (see also info-box > page 49).
The urban demographic future – further population decline and ageing
According to population projections (the latest one was published in 2004 by the
Central Statistical Office GUS), the population decline of Łódź will continue during
the next decades. The population decline is predicted at a rate of up to 6,000 people
a year up to 2020; after that the decline may even rise to between 6,500 and 7,500
people a year. The total decrease in inhabitants in the period 2005-2030 is expected
to amount to 164,000 people (which represents 21% of the total 2005 population;
GUS 2004). Of the five largest cities in Poland, this is the most significant relative loss
of inhabitants: during the period covered by the projections, Poznań will lose 15%
of its 2005 population, Kraków and Wrocław 14% each, and Warsaw 9%. By 2030, the
population of Łódź is predicted to be 605,000.
Future population decline will be caused mainly by natural decrease (surplus of
deaths over births), out-migration and emigration. The decrease is predicted to be
primarily an effect of natural decrease (mainly due to low birth numbers). It is the
main explanatory factor for the projected drop in inhabitants between 2006 and
2030. Suburbanisation will probably play a rather limited role also in the future.

The current process of ageing is also predicted to continue into the
future. The forecast shows that the share of inhabitants of pre-working
age (0-17) in the whole city will decrease between 2005 and 2030 from
15% to 11% (Table 4.3.4). According to these projections, it is the older
age groups (64+) that will see the biggest increase (from 19% in 2005
up to 33% in 2030). The age dependency ratio (the number of people
65+ divided by the number aged 15-64) will double by 2030. Although
the projections displayed in Table 4.3.4 compare the demographic
development of the inner city with that of the whole city, the authors
are not convinced about this linear extrapolation. This is because, as
mentioned above, the inner city has started to attract younger
inhabitants over the last few years and could maintain this trend in
the future. This is, however, dependent on a number of other socioeconomic trends.

46 47

Housing market: ongoing shortage and quality problems
As in other cities in Poland, the housing market in Łódź has changed considerably, due to
privatisation and post-socialist restructuring after 1989. The changes are characterised first and
foremost by a rising share of privately owned dwellings, which are occupied either by renters
or owner-occupiers. There are also differences in the tenure structure: in the inner city tenure is
predominantly private and municipal rental, with 36% and 41% shares, respectively; and in the
large housing estates in the outer parts of the city, tenure is predominantly cooperative (Table
4.3.5). Over the past two decades, both the municipality and the cooperatives have been selling
off their housing stock to sitting tenants for a very small percentage (only 10% to 20%) of the real
market price. Consequently, there are many owner-occupied dwellings whose owners do not have
the financial means to renovate them or even to maintain them. This holds especially true for the
inner city, where the old housing stock is in a far worse condition compared with newer estates
(Fig. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4).

In the course of privatisation, new forms of tenure have developed: in particular,
associations of owner-occupiers, i.e. people who have bought a home in a municipal
building which also still has tenants (people who are renting). As a result, in a single
building, there may now be at least three different types of tenure: firstly, long-term
tenants, some of whom are sharing a home with other households; secondly, owneroccupier newcomers who have bought their home; and thirdly, tenant newcomers who
are living in privately rented homes for a while.
The municipality only has a limited influence on the housing market. In 2004-2005, it undertook a small inner-city
revitalisation project called PROREVITA (see info-box below). This was restricted to two small inner-city areas.
Due to the boom in the housing market from 2004 to 2007 (CEE Property Group 2008),
prices went up significantly. While in 2004, the price per m2 was less than 3,000 Złoty
(ca. 919 Euro), it went up to almost 6,000 Złoty (1,837 Euro) in 2007. Projects like the
Scheibler lofts, in a former textile factory in the southern part of the city centre, play
an important role in this revitalisation process. Moreover, in spite of the decline in
population described above, new housing is also being built on the urban outskirts:
on the fringes of the large housing estates and in adjacent rural areas. A considerable
number of these new housing developments are guarded, fenced or gated. Such new
housing has attracted mainly the better-off households, including people from Warsaw
or abroad, who have bought the new properties in order to let them at high rents.

48 49

Info-box: An endangered ‘jewel’ in transformation – Łódź’s old built-up inner city6
The inner city of Łódź (Śródmieście) was not destroyed during World War II. So, one of Poland’s biggest historic built-up areas has been
preserved. Characterised by its rectilinear street grid, which was laid out in the 19th century, at a time of rapid growth for the city, this area
represents a major part of the cultural heritage of Łódź (Kaczmarek 1997). Today, the majority (66%) of the inner city’s housing still dates from
before 1945, with 49% of homes dating back to before 1918 (Table 4.3.5 above). When they were built, some of the flats were very large
(>100 m2), with generous room sizes and high-standard amenities. The rest of the dwellings in this area represent sub-standard housing.

family. Some flats are still shared by two or more households, with a shared corridor or even a shared kitchen and bathroom.

During the 1990s, the inner city was subject to commercialisation and renovation (Riley et al. 1999). Many small
enterprises replaced the big factories. In some locations, the inner city lost its housing function. New shopping malls,
such as Galeria Łódzka and Manufaktura, were established. The latter was created in one of the biggest former textile
buildings: the Poznański factory (Fig. 4.3.5). To date, there has been little renovation of the old building stock: renewal
activities are mainly restricted to historical sights and to selected buildings which today operate as banks, hotels,
offices and shops. The housing stock was subject to only a few renewal activities renovation up until now.
Consequently, decline is found side-by-side with urban renewal within the inner city (Fig. 4.3.6). In 2004-5, the
municipality undertook the revitalisation project PROREVITA (www.prorevita.pl; Markowski and Stawasz 2007): this
involved two small inner-city areas which were regarded as two of the least attractive residential neighbourhoods.
Newly-built municipal rental housing (so-called TBS) was developed here, and this will remain as rental housing
in the future. Recently, spot gentrification has occurred for individual streets or blocks, and while no large-scale
polarisation exists to date, future polarisation cannot be ruled out.

According to our recent qualitative research in the inner city of Łódź, there are a small number of ‘convinced urbanites’ (i.e. city-minded
people), who deliberately choose to live in housing in the old built-up areas, close to the city centre (in Łódź, the centre is defined by
Piotrkowska Street). Many of the new, post-privatisation owners do not, however, have the money to renovate their flats and even less the
staircases, roofs or facades. The same is true for the municipality. As a result, many old houses are in a very bad state of repair. Therefore,
the biggest problem today for the old built-up areas is the on-going dilapidation and decay. Representatives of the municipality estimate
that some 500 buildings are uninhabitable. Yet, in spite of this, about 300 of them flats are currently occupied. Poor condition and decay
is the main reason for housing demolition (in contrast with Leipzig, where supply surplus is the reason). Between 1988 and 2002, a
remarkable 3,300 flats, or 9% of the inner-city housing stock, was demolished.

6

War II (1945 onwards) and were assigned to Polish inhabitants. Many large dwellings were either divided up or given to more than one

Information given by representatives of the City of Łódź in October 2007 during our research in the conDENSE project and taken from the municipal website www.uml.lodz.pl.

Before World War II, many homes in the inner city were in German or Jewish ownership. These dwellings became state-owned after World

Łód
Despite recent in-migration, the old built-up areas of the inner city are still
regarded as some of the least attractive housing areas in the city. According
to local experts, none of the large housing estates are, or are likely to be, as
endangered as the inner city housing. Major initiatives are therefore necessary
to preserve the built-up inner city heritage of Łódź.

Figure 4.3.5: Renovated and reused textile factory

Figure 4.3.6: Refurbished inner-city housing

Manufaktura (Photo: A. Haase 2007)

stock (Photo: A. Haase 2007)

50 51

How does the City of Łódź deal with demographic changes in
the field of housing?7
The City of Łódź is aware of the problems of local demographic change,
although in contrast to neighbouring Germany, few like to talk about population
‘shrinkage’. One reason is that, in Poland, population decline is often known as
“depopulation” or “demographic de-pression” which have negative connotations

contrast: in spite of the significant population decline, a housing shortage
prevails, and there are new housing construction projects both on the fringes of
the city and also inside the city boundaries. Apart from the housing shortage, the
topics that are currently at the top of the municipal agenda are, firstly, the poor
condition of housing in the old built-up areas, and secondly, the revitalisation
of the central parts of the city. This revitalisation work includes streetscapes,
housing, urban infrastructure and green spaces. Major regeneration projects are
planned for some of the attractively-located areas of the inner city (e.g. the area
around the railway station Fabryczna), where there is scope to establish new
cultural and commercial centres. Other, residential, areas that are poorer and less
attractive are shown to be stagnating. However, some of them could undergo
processes of gentrification and the construction of loft housing over the next
years.

6

is that the housing market and the demographic reality continue to be in sharp

Information given by representatives of the City of Łódź in October 2007 during our research in the conDENSE project and taken from the municipal website www.uml.lodz.pl.

(e.g. Kowalski and Śleszyński 2006, 111; Obra-niak 1997). The other main reason

Bologna is Italy’s 7th largest city in terms of the number of inhabitants, and is the regional centre
of Emilia Romagna. In 2007, the city had a population of some 372,000 living in an area of 140 km2.
Bologna’s conurbation has a population of some 1 million. The city has several nicknames: la rossa,
the red one, referring to the colour of many of its historic buildings; la dotta, the learned one,
because it has the oldest university in Europe, founded in 1088; and la grassa, the fat one, which
relates to the city’s rich cuisine. Having been a trading centre for centuries, with a tradition of
hosting trade fairs, the city developed as one of Italy’s major industrial and transport hubs during
the late 19th century.
Today, the university, with its 96,000 or so students, has a considerable impact on the city’s urban
life and local economy. For example, the Declaration of Bologna was signed here, in 1999, by
European Ministers of Education attending the first meeting of the Bologna Process (which aims to

Bologn

4_Profiles of five cities
4.4_Bologna

unify European Higher Education).
Bologna was declared the European City of Culture for 2000. It is characterised by a historic city
centre, featuring one of the largest collections of architectural heritage buildings in Europe. In
addition, Bologna is famous for its portici, a vast network of covered arcades or walkways, with an
overall length of more than 40 km.
Demographic development between decline, ‘recovery’ and ageing
During the last few decades, urban Italy, and in particular Bologna’s administrative region of Emilia Romagna, has
experienced similar population trends to other parts of Europe, including ageing. In addition, the region has seen more
profound demographic changes than other parts of Europe: for example, declining marriage rates, later marriage, the
postponement and also the decline of childbearing, as well as the emergence of smaller households.
At the same time, there have been the dynamics of suburbanisation and counterurbanisation. People
have moved out of the city into the surrounding areas or to the suburbs, due to changing employment
and housing patterns as well as broader socio-economic trends (Buzar et al. 2007a, 69-81). However,
the inner city of Bologna has started to change its demographic make-up, even though there is still
a continuous population outflow to peripheral parts of the city or to adjacent settlements. (The inner
suburban zone around Bologna is estimated to have some 275,000 inhabitants.) The last ten years or so
have seen the emergence of new migration flows, as the city centre and the areas around it have begun
to attract ever-increasing numbers of new residents.
After World War II, Bologna experienced an initial phase of population decline during the 1950s, and
then, after a short period of recovery in the early 1960s, there has been a second phase of population
decline, beginning in the mid-1960s. This second phase of decline lasted until 2004. The current
population is 140,000 less than the population in the early 1950s. The historic city centre lost slightly more
inhabitants than the outer areas of the city. However, from 2004 onwards, the number of inhabitants
has oscillated between 372,000 and 374,000, which points to some stabilisation after decades of
population decline (Fig. 4.4.1). This trend is also positively interpreted by Bologna’s municipal experts.

52 53

It needs to be stressed that, for Bologna, there is a significant difference between its resident population and its daytime
population. In the daytime, the city has an additional 140,000 people (about 100,000 commuters and 40,000 students)
who are working or studying in the city but do not live there (Comune di Bologna 2005a, 1). So during the day, the city is
host to about half a million people.

378,356

373,026

372,256

Inhabitants

385,136

1976

406,291

484,704

1973

500,000

432,406

493,535

600,000

461,765

Figure 4.4.1_Bologna â&#x20AC;&#x201C; population development 1973â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2007

1991

1996

2001

2006

2007

400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000

1981

1986

Source: Comune di Bologna 2007a

The long-term population decline of Bologna since World War II was caused partly by a surplus of deaths over births and
partly by out-migration. Yet, while the surplus of deaths over births has remained constant since 1966, in-migration from
other Italian regions has played an increasing role for Bologna. From 2001 to 2006, the city experienced more in- than outmigration (a net gain of 21,000 inhabitants). This outweighed the negative natural population changes of 2001-2006, and,
as a result, the city saw a net population gain of 13,300 people (Fig. 4.4.2).
Figure 4.4.2_Bologna â&#x20AC;&#x201C; natural population development and migration balance 1991-2007

770 inhabitants (0.2% of the total population; Comune di Bologna 2007a). Bologna’s positive migration
balance is mainly due to people migrating out of other Italian regions (Mezzogiorno).To a lesser but
increasing extent, population gains are also due to international immigration which has been an
important factor during the last few decades. From 1989 to 2008, the number of foreign nationals living
in Bologna increased from 3,400 to 36,000 (9% of the total population; Comune di Bologna 2008a, see
also info-box > page 59).
The majority of people now living in Bologna were not born in the city (2004: 64% of
inhabitants not born in Bologna vs. 36% born in Bologna; Comune di Bologna 2005a,
3). Thus, for many inner-city districts, a considerable proportion of residents living
there today have only moved to Bologna over the last decade.

Bologn

Currently, Bologna is no longer a ‘shrinking’ city. From 2006 to 2007, for example, the city only lost some

In general, the large historic city centre (centro storico) experienced only negligible population losses
between 1993 and 2003. As Buzar et al. (2007a) underline, between 1999 and 2003 the inner city of
Bologna “had the highest net inflow of population of the entire municipality” (ibid., 71): this was except
for one small suburban area. This inflow indicates a new trend, discussed below under the heading
‘reurbanisation’.
1964 was the year of a ‘baby boom’, with 7,083 children born in Bologna. The number of births then declined continuously
until the early 1980s (it reached its lowest value in 1981 with 2,318 births); the birth rate then remained at a very low
level until 1994. Since then, however, the birth rate has undergone a slight but steady increase (from 2,193 births in 1994
to 3,013 in 2007; Comune di Bologna 2008b); and by 2007, the number of births was 17% higher than 10 years earlier
(Comune di Bologna 2008b).
The last few decades have also seen a postponement of childbearing: the mean age of mothers at
first birth increased from 30.7 years in 1991 to 33.2 years in 2007. The overall share of older parents has
also increased. In terms of natural population development during the last 10 years, statistics show
that on average, there were 2,000 to 3,000 more deaths than births each year. In 2007, this natural
population decline decreased to only 1,754 more deaths than births, due to a slightly higher birth rate
and a slightly lower death rate. In addition, there was a positive migration balance (a net in-migration
of 984 people). As a result, 2007 is being described as a “year of optimism”.
Like most other European cities, Bologna faces an ageing of its residential population.
This overall trend is reflected in the increasing share of older people from 1991 to
2007 (23% were aged 65+ in 1991 versus 27% aged 65+ in 2007); and a simultaneous
decline in people of working age (from 68% to 62%). During the same period, the
share of children (0-14 years) remained more or less stable with a slight positive
tendency (rising from 8% to 10%). As a consequence, the mean age of the population
increased slowly but continuously: from 46.4 years in 1991 to 47.7 years in 2002. Since
then, it has remained more or less stable (Comune di Bologna 2007a; Table 4.4.1).

54 55

Table 4.4.1_Bologna – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006

1991

1996

2001

2006

Percentage of total population aged:
0-14

8.3

8.5

9.5

10.3

15-64

68.2

58.9

64.2

62.6

65+

23.5

25.8

26.3

27.0

Number of persons aged:
65-79

73,164

72,568

71,513

68,543

80+

22,201

26,620

27,848

32,281

Total 65+

95,365

99,188

99,361

100,824

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)

12.19

14.45

14.82

16.50

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)

34.41

43.74

40.89

43.15

Index of ageing (65+/0-14)

283.1

303.5

276.8

262.1

Average age

46.1

47.3

47.6

47.7

Source: Comune di Bologna 2007a

This tendency towards decelerated ageing is also reflected in the index of ageing (the ratio
of older people to children): this increased steadily until 1993, but has decreased during
the last 12 years (80 in 1973; 303 in 1996; 262 in 2006; Table 4.4.1). As for the inner city, the
index of ageing showed a similar trend but it has been decreasing since 1991 and showed
a significantly lower value (246) than the city as a whole (266) in 2004. However, further and
more dynamic ageing is expected in the future. Since Bologna is the workplace for many
commuters, and since its amenities are used by both the urban and suburban population,
ageing in the suburban zones and the wider hinterland must be taken into account when
looking at the implications of demographic change for the city, its housing market and
infrastructures.
Future population development
There are three key population projections for Bologna, based on optimistic, intermediate and pessimistic scenarios
(Comune di Bologna 2008c and Fig. 4.4.3). The optimistic scenario predicts a continuous population growth by 2021 (from
374,000 in 2008 to 386,000 in 2021); the intermediate scenario predicts population stagnation at 374,000; and the pessimistic
scenario shows a slight population decrease to 360,000 inhabitants by 2021. However, all three scenarios show that for
the Bologna region as a whole, population growth is likely until 2013. After that date, the pessimistic forecast shows
population decline in the areas surrounding Bologna as well. Different assumptions about migration account for most
of the differences in the forecasts. While the “optimistic” scenario is based on a steadily growing net in-migration, the
“intermediate” sees a steady net in-migration, and the “pessimistic” sees a decreasing net in-migration which approaches
zero by 2021.

Inhabitants

385,000
380,000
375,000
370,000
365,000
360,000
355,000

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

optimistic scenario intermediate scenario pessimistic scenario

Bologn

Figure 4.4.3_Population scenarios until 2021
390,000

Source: Comune di Bologna 2008c

Households and housing market: facts and figures
According to Bologna’s municipal figures, the number of households in the city, in terms of social and economic units
(famiglia, see Addendum), has been continuously increasing since 1993 (from just under 174,000 to about 194,000 in
2007). This represents a growth of 12% (Comune di Bologna 2008l). During that time, households have become smaller
(from 2.24 to 1.89 persons on average), and, due to their structure, more diverse.
However, when looking at the use of the housing stock, in 2007 there were only 178,350 homes. Therefore,
some 16,000 homes were inhabited by more than one household (famiglia) known as ménages in the
municipal statistics (see Comune di Bologna 2007c and Addendum). As elsewhere, different studies use
different definitions of ‘household’; and while the mean size of a famiglia (family) was 1.89 people in 2007,
that of a ménage (people sharing kitchen, bathroom, and meals) was bigger (2.07 people).
The share of one-person households has continued to grow in Bologna. In 2007, there were 92,644 one-person households (famiglia), representing 47.6% of all households, i.e. almost one in two households (Table 4.4.2). However, for a more
realistic picture of the share of people living alone, one has to look at the share of one-person ménages. At 39% it is considerably lower (approximately 70,000 persons).
Table 4.4.2_Bologna – indicators of the housing market 1991, 2001 and 2007

The difference between the numbers of households using the famiglia definition of a household,
and the numbers referring to the ménage definition, is mainly due to the fact that a lot of younger
people (students and young professionals) are sharing a home with others because of Bologna’s
expensive housing costs. This is particularly true in the city centre (centro storico) and the larger inner
city (see also Buzar et al. 2007a, 72-4). However, there are also multi-generation families living in one
dwelling (mainly adult children and their parents; Comune di Bologna 2004, 14). In 2007, 28% of the
total number of households (famiglie) was made up of two-person households, 15% were 3-person
and 9% were bigger households (Comune di Bologna 2008l). But, interestingly, and contrary to
predominant trends in most West European countries, the number of families with dependent children
increased from 1995 to 2005: from 39,000 to 45,000. Among them, 44% are families with one child,
43% with two, 10% with three and 3% with more than three children (Comune di Bologna 2005b).
Until 1993, the number of households with dependent children saw a decrease, but since then it has
been increasing continuously. In the inner city, the number of households with dependent children
decreased for a little longer, until 1994. But since then, the number of families with dependent children
has been growing here, too.
In terms of its housing market, Bologna is, like Italian cities in general, characterised
by a predominance of owner-occupied housing, and a preference for such housing. Renting as a form of tenure is much less frequent than, for example, in Leipzig
(Table 4.4.3). According to the census data from 2001, the share of owner-occupied
housing in Bologna was 65% while rental housing was only 29%. The ratio of owneroccupied housing was lower in the inner city where there is more rental housing
available: 54% was owner-occupied housing compared with 37% rented. This corresponds to the higher proportions of young and non-traditional households who
live in the inner city, but do not own a home there: they prefer to rent, either from
the private or the public sector. In different parts of the city, the share of owneroccupied and rental housing varies: between 74% and 53% for owner-occupied,
and between 38% and 20% for rented, per district (the figures relate to inhabited
dwellings only).
Table 4.4.3_Share of owner-occupied and rental housing stock 2007*

figure for the numbers of vacant dwellings (i.e. dwellings that are available as homes but are vacant),
but it is estimated to be about 7,000 dwellings (3-4% of the total stock). These flats are not rented out,
but instead are kept empty by the owner, either because they are being sold, or because they are in a
bad state of repair (Comune di Bologna 2005b).

Bologn

The census in 2001 counted 21,500 unoccupied dwellings (11% of the total stock). There is no exact

According to the census, there were 194,862 dwellings in Bologna in 2001. The average dwelling
had 3.7 rooms and a floor space of 85 m2, and was inhabited by 1.7 people. The mean housing space
per person was 40 m2 (Table 4.4.2 above). In the inner city, dwellings and space per inhabitant are
generally bigger (at 95 m2 and 49 m2, respectively).
Socio-spatially, Bologna is a divided city. The better-off areas with higher housing standards are
situated in the southern part of the city (where there are hills and more greenery), while the traditional
working-class areas are situated close to the industrial zone in the northern part of the city (Comune
di Bologna 2007b). Consequently, the socio-economic status is higher in the south. Residents with
lower socio-economic status tend to live in the north, thus unemployment there is higher and average
incomes are lower. Also, in terms of the size of the dwellings, there is a noticeable south-north gradient.

Inner-city reurbanisation: a new tendency of urban development
Bolognaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban development in recent years has been shaped by two main processes. On the one hand, there is a
continuing suburbanisation, with households moving from the core of the city to the adjacent areas where new housing is
being built. These new developments are often in the form of densely built, multi-storey housing, but also traditional singlefamily houses. On the other hand, during the last few decades, the inner city has been increasingly repopulated by younger
households who are in their majority city-minded and prefer urban living. This is the process known as reurbanisation
(Haase, A. et al. 2006, 168; Buzar et al. 2007a).
Reurbanisation has not only affected the composition of the
population, it also changed the image and social milieu of the
districts. Within the European research project Re Urban Mobil (see
Chapter 3 above), the authors investigated two traditional workingclass districts in more detail: Bolognina and San Donato. These are
situated close to the historic city centre, but separated from it by
the railway. During recent decades, both areas have suffered from
population decline, ageing, and a loss of the traditional
neighbourhood iden-tity. Due to their location on busy main arterial
roads, leading to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adjacent regions, both areas have been
increasingly affected by traffic and noise pollution (Commune di
Bologna 2002, 30-4). Recently, both neighbourhoods have also
faced the immigration of foreign nationals and a rise in younger
households (e.g. students; Comune di Bologna 2004, 4).

58 59

for both these two vibrant and slightly run-down districts. Every third household
had moved in during the last five years. In-migration brought about changes of
household composition, age profile, and social structure (mainly with respect to
educational attainment). There are three predominant types of recently-settled
households: firstly, unrelated adults sharing a flat (36% in Bolognina and 28% in
San Donato; Fig. 4.4.4); secondly, households with dependent children (families as
well as single parent households; 32 and 26%, respectively); and thirdly, one-person
households (although this was not evident from the questionnaire data7). Moreover,
55% of the newcomers were under 40 years old.
Figure 4.4.4_Household types of reurbanites in % (n=99; based on survey data)
40
30
20
10
0
other types of
flat
household
households
sharing
with children

young
couple
household

young
one-person
household

Household types of reurbanites (n=99)

Source: Haase, A. et al. 2006

The fact that there was also a significant number of young families who have chosen to live in the inner-city
areas of Bolognina and San Donato, rather than moving to the suburbs, should encourage the municipality
to foster the regeneration of inner-city areas and make them more family-adequate. Last but not least, the
influx of immigrants has been crucial in terms of compensating for the rapid ageing process in these areas
(see info-box).

7

questionnaire survey. We found evidence for recent household-driven reurbanisation

T he share of one-person households in both areas is considerably higher than the share shown among the respondents; this relates to strict rules of data protection in Italy and corresponding attitudes of the
population (Haase, A. et al. 2006, 171-2, 174).

This was also proven by our research in 2003 and 2004 which was mainly based on a

Bologn

Info-box: International immigration: a major factor of urban development in Bologna

Bologna has seen a significant increase in the rate of international immigration during the last few decades. While in 1989 only 3,402

immigrants were living in the city, the number increased to 35,951 by 31 March 2008 (see also Fig. 4.4.5). At the same time, the share of

children with at least one immigrant parent increased. Compared with the city-wide average, the residential quarters of Bolognina (16%)
and San Donato (12%) were characterised by relatively high immigration during the 1990s. Both are inner-city areas, formerly populated

by predominantly working-class residents (Haase, A. et al. 2005, 113-7). Generally, foreign nationals are overrepresented in the northern
parts of Bologna whereas in the better-off southern residential areas, their share is considerably lower (Fig. 4.4.6). In early 2008, the majority

of international immigrants originated from Romania (4,171 persons), the Philippines (3,760), Bangladesh (3,012) and Morocco (2,862).
Other countries of origin were Albania, China, Ukraine, Moldova, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Poland, the former Serbia-Montenegro, Peru
and Eritrea. In terms of their age structure, the foreign nationals are a very young population. By 31 March 2008, their mean age was 32.1

years and thus far below that of the total population (47.7 years). Among Bologna’s residents aged up to 24 years, 15% are foreign nationals
(compared with 9% in the total population; Comune di Bologna 2008a). For Bologna, immigration decisively contributes to a reduction in

ageing and to inner-city repopulation. The overwhelming majority of immigrants live in one-person households and share the dwelling
with others; and many immigrants live in substandard housing conditions.

Our research surveys and interviews in Bolognina and San Donato showed that rising immigration is perceived in a mainly negative light
by the residents in the affected areas. Mostly, this issue is mentioned as one of the reasons why people would not recommend to friends
that they should move to these districts, or when giving reasons for a worsening situation in recent years. The main problems consist of
differences in the organisation of daily life and a lack of language skills among both Italian and immigrant inhabitants. There is also a lack
of knowledge about each others living circumstances and culture.

However, at the city level, local politicians have started to react to the steady increase of international immigrants. Some 10 years ago, a formal
political institution was founded in Bologna: a forum of foreign civic associations. It encompasses 57 associations; and a body of 144
delegates works in a ‘parliament’ that meets twice a year to discuss any problems and the possible solutions. In 1999, in the district of
San Donato, the intercultural Zonarelli centre was founded, which includes a special office for migration issues. In addition, an up-todate list of all foreign associations in Bologna, and the issues they deal with, is accessible to everyone via the municipal website. Hence,
immigrants in Bologna have quite a good network of advice and information across the city.

Figure 4.4.5_Development of immigrants’ population

Figure 4.4.6_Share of immigrants in Bologna’s

in Bologna from 1989 to 2007 (as of 31/12)

urban districts in 2008

Source: Comune di Bologna 2008a

Source: Comune di Bologna 2008a

60 61

How does the City of Bologna deal with demographic changes in the field of housing?8
This section, on how Bologna is dealing with demographic changes in terms of
housing, presents selected results of expert interviews from our 2002-2005 research
for the Re Urban Mobil project. It also includes findings from the report “I dati in
sintesi” (Comune di Bologna 2005a) which discusses the challenges of future
planning with respect to demographic changes.
In the interviews conducted in 2004, local experts mentioned demographic change
as one of the major challenges for Bologna’s urban development (Haase, A. et al.
2005, 117-9).
In particular, the following issues were highlighted:
- t he ongoing process of ageing of the residential population, especially in certain districts, e.g. San
Donato;
- t he rising heterogeneity of people living together in a neighbourhood, due to demographic change,
recent in-migration and increasing immigration, especially in those areas where students and
immigrants meet older people (including ‘frail’ older people) and long-term inhabitants, with the
resulting diversity of requirements for housing and amenities, on a small scale;
- the consequences of immigration, which is also regarded as a chance to compensate for the ageing

also underlined the advantages of these neighbourhoods (central location, rental housing, moderate
rents, smaller flats etc.) for different newcomers (e.g. low-income households, students, single parents
and foreign nationals);
- the lack of interest of young people in neighbourhood development and engagement in
neighbourhood activities;
- the necessity to improve of the residential environment, especially in the inner city and the northern
parts of the city, to keep these areas attractive for residential use; problems of noise, traffic and lack of
greenery should in particular be tackled by future policies.
The 2005 report “I dati in sintesi” also discusses the need for the city to adjust to
demographic changes, especially with respect to ageing. It underlines the
importance of age-group-specific services and amenities, and emphasises the
need for policies for older people, but also for children and families (in particular to
encourage them to remain in the city), and for immigrants (see info-box above in
page 59).

8

shifts in the residential structure, but also a loss of the traditional identity of the areas; the experts

Information from our research 2002-2005 and taken from the municipal website www.comune.bologna.it.

processes (“demographic resource”);
- the stabilisation of working-class districts like Bolognina and San Donato, where we observed not only

In 2007, Liverpool celebrated its 800th anniversary. It is the UK’s sixth largest city, with some 440,000
inhabitants and an area of 111 km². It is also Britain’s second largest export port (after London), and is
famous for its soccer clubs and vibrant music scene. The popularity of The Beatles and other music bands
has contributed to Liverpool’s success as a tourist destination. Liverpool was named European Capital
of Culture for 2008, along with the City of Stavanger in Norway. Its maritime heritage, together with its
economic transformation over the past 60 years, are reflected in the cityscape. In 2004, the famous River
Mersey waterfront, with its Pier Head and so-called ‘Three Graces’ (The Royal Liver Building, the Cunard
Building and the Port of Liverpool Building), was made a UNESCO World Heritage site. Liverpool’s three
universities, with around 40,000 students, are a further major factor in the city’s development (LCC 2001).
Population trends – rapid growth, long-term decline and recent stabilisation
Liverpool’s population trends need to be seen in a global geo-political context and are directly linked with
the economic development of the city. For a long time, Liverpool’s docks played an important role as a
traditional gateway for goods as well as for people, between the UK, Europe and other parts of the world.
The growth of trade, and thus jobs, in the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries, brought massive
population expansion in the city. In just 100 years, Liverpool’s population increased almost tenfold: from

Liverpoo

4_Profiles of five cities
4.5_Liverpool

77,000 in 1801 to 704,000 in 1901. In the 1930s, the population reached its peak: 870,000 inhabitants lived
in the city, and 1.8 million inhabitants in the conurbation (Merseyside). At that time the city was known as
the second city of the empire, after London (Misselwitz 2004).
This phase of growth stopped in the late 1930s, at the end of the interwar period, when Britain’s economic centre shifted
towards London and the south-eastern part of the country. During World War II, Liverpool and the Merseyside conurbation
were one of the most bombed areas after London. Many of Liverpool’s historic buildings, as well as a large number of homes,
were either destroyed or heavily damaged. Almost 4,000 people were killed, some 3,500 were seriously injured, and over
70,000 became homeless.
The years immediately after World War II were characterised by reconstruction and a short phase of
economic upturn; employment reached its peak in the early 1960s. However, increased maritime
productivity (larger ships, faster turnaround, more containerisation), falling demand for imports and
exports (due to the decline in manufacturing in its hinterland), and an unsuitable geographical location
from which to exploit the expanding trade between the UK and the rest of Europe, then resulted in a
massive decline in employment in Liverpool’s port and its associated industries.

62 63

Between 1966 and 1978, Liverpool lost 20% of its employment base; a further 18% was lost between 1978 and 1981 (ibid.).
Within twenty years, the mono-functional maritime economy had collapsed, and by 1971, the city had lost more than half
of its manufacturing industry (Couch 2003). The consequence was long-term population shrinkage. Between 1961 and 1981,
Liverpool lost one third of its population; and between 1981 and 2001 the population decreased by a further 13%. As a result,
the population has fallen to around 440,000. The scale of this population decline is comparable with that of Leipzig. It is also
worth noting, that in spite of suburbanisation and urban sprawl, the total population of the Merseyside conurbation has also
fallen, to about 1.4 million in 2006, as a result of the high out-migration to other regions (Couch et al. 2005). Fig. 4.5.1 shows
the population development of Liverpool between 1961 and 2006.

1991

1996

436,100

500,000

439,300

600,000

468,000

Inhabitants

700,000

510,000

610,000

800,000

474,500

745,000

Figure 4.5.1_Liverpool – population development 1961-2006

2001

2006

400,000
300,000
200,000

1961

1971

1981

Source: LCC 2007a, UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008

The population decline in Liverpool (as well as in the Merseyside conurbation) is exclusively a result of out-migration. Even
during the dramatic population shrinkage of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, births exceeded deaths. Figure 4.5.2 shows both
natural population development and migration balance in Liverpool between 1991 and 2006.

Source: UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008 (no data available for the year 1997)

1999

2000

2001

migration balance

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Liverpoo

The fact that there has been either a positive or an equally balanced natural population

development over the past twenty years, contributes to the fact that, in contrast to similar

shrinking cities in other European countries, the age structure of Liverpool in the last few
decades has not changed dramatically. In fact, the proportion of each age group has hardly

changed at all in the last two decades (Table 4.5.1). This phenomenon can also be explained by
the in-migration of younger inhabitants (15-29 years) for educational reasons. In this context
the University of Liverpool, with more than 20,000 students, plays an important role. In all other
age groups, more people migrated out of the city than migrated in, even among the 60+ age

group. In addition, the migration trend over previous decades has caused a reduction in the
current size of older people (Table 4.5.1).

Nevertheless, 15% of Liverpool’s population is 65+, and the number of people aged 75+ is higher than the national
average (UK Office for National Statistics 2006, LCC 2006a). Over the next few years, the number of older people aged

80+ will increase as a result of rising life expectancy. Furthermore, the post-World War I ‘baby boomers’, who were born
in the 1920s and 1930s, are entering this age group. So, there is a growing need for high quality services and housing
for older people.
Table 4.5.1_Liverpool – demographic indicators of ageing 1991-2006

1991

1996

2001

2006

Share of total population aged:
0-14

20.0

20.2

20.1

17.8

15-65

64.2

64.9

64.6

67.3

65+

15.8

14.9

15.3

14.9

Number of persons aged:
65-74

42,400

39,200

37,600

35,100

75+

32,500

30,500

29,400

29,700

Total 65+

74,900

67,700

67,000

64,800

Youth dependency rate (0-14/15-64)

31.2

31.2

31.1

26.4

Age dependency rate (65+/15-64)

24.6

23.0

23.6

22.1

Index of ageing (65+/0-14)

78.8

73.6

75.9

83.4

Source: UK Office for National Statistics 1991-2008

Another important and growing group within Liverpool’s population in recent years is the Black and Racial Minority (BRM)
community. They grew from 3.8% of the total population in 1991 to 8.2% in 2001. One reason is the increased immigration of
refugees and asylum seekers (LCC 2006a).

64 65

Demographic change in Liverpool has led to new household structures. As has been seen elsewhere, there
has been a steady decrease in household size, and an increase in one-person households. The Census in 2001
showed an average household size of about 2.3 people. At that time, more than one third of the households
consisted of one person. In addition, non-traditional household types increased in importance (Table 4.5.2).
16% of the total households were single retired adults without children; and 12% were one-parent households
with dependent children.
Table 4.5.2_Liverpool â&#x20AC;&#x201C; household indicators in 2001 (census data)

Total

Share

Resident population

439,200

-

Number of households

187,900

-

Number of one-person households

69,400

36.9%

One-person household: retirement age and no children

29,700

15.8%

One-parent households with dependent child(ren)

24,000

11.5%

One-parent households with no dependent child(ren)

9,900

5.3%

2.3

-

Average household size
Source: LCC 2001

Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic decline in the last few decades has also had socio-economic consequences. To date,
compared with the average for the UK as a whole, Liverpool has higher unemployment, a higher proportion
of people claiming benefits, and lower household incomes (LCC 2008a, 2008b). At the end of 2006, the
unemployment rate was more than 26% (UK as a whole: 14.7%). All in all, the city is one of the most deprived
boroughs in the western EU (LCC 2006a).
But in the mid-1990s there was an economic turnaround, and over the last 10 years Liverpool has been
characterised by economic growth. This has given hope for population stabilisation, or even growth, as well as
improved social conditions. Over the period 1995-2005, the Gross Value Added (GVA) increased by some 65%.
The average GVA growth rate per year was 5.1%. Between 1998 and 2006 the total number of jobs increased
by about 1.4% and the average annual growth in employment in the so-called knowledge economy was 2.1%
(LCC 2008b). As a result, while there is still a negative migration balance, out-migration has decreased and inmigration has increased. Currently, particularly in the 25-29 age group, net migration is positive.
Liverpool City Council is aiming for an end to long-term population shrinkage by 2010, with a key target of achieving a
population of 500,000 by 2013 (LCC 2006a). Future projections for Liverpool (based on sub-national population projections),
forecast a population increase to more than 470,000 by 2029 (LCC 2006b). However, this depends on whether the city can offer
attractive jobs and living conditions. The quality of housing will become increasingly important for the future development
of the city.

The demographic and socio-economic trends described above will have various effects
on the future local housing market and housing requirements. In Liverpool, there are
very diverse and complex patterns of communities and groups that need specific
support. Dealing with multiple social problems is one of the main challenges for future
housing strategies. In addition, the housing needs of younger and highly-qualified
people, as well as transient households, must be met.
Before these factors and Liverpool’s actual housing strategies are discussed, the specific
local features and current characteristics of Liverpool’s housing situation must be outlined briefly. Table 4.5.3 gives a short overview of Liverpool’s dwelling stock by tenure,
conditions, demand and vacancy: for 2001, 2003 and 2006.
Table 4.5.3_Liverpool - Housing stock by tenure, conditions and demand in 2001, 2003 and 2006

First of all, Liverpool’s housing market is characterised by two different sectors. On the one hand, there is the social rented
housing sector that belongs to the Local Authority and to Registered Social Landlords (i.e. non-profit independent housing
organisations, registered with the Housing Corporation under The Housing Act 1996). On the other hand, there is the private
housing sector (owner-occupied or rented). At the beginning of the new millennium (2001), there was an approximate 30:70
split between the social rented sector and the private (i.e. owner-occupied and private rental) sector, based on the number
of the dwellings. Looking from a household perspective, the Census in 2001 showed that more than 30% of Liverpool’s
households lived in a social rented dwelling, and 13% in a private rented dwelling (LCC 2001). Thus Liverpool has a large social
rented housing sector, and scores below UK average on owner-occupancy.
During recent years, the social rented housing sector has seen some fundamental changes. Whereas, until the
early 1990’s, Liverpool City Council was the main supplier of rented accommodation in the city, all of Liverpool’s
housing stock was transferred to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) between 1990 and 2008. These RSLs have
become increasingly important as providers of housing (Table 4.5.3 above), both for those who cannot afford
to buy or rent privately, and for those who need special housing.
The extensive period of depopulation, as a result of the loss of manufacturing and industry since the
1970s, has led to a spiral of decline, especially in the inner city. Many residential districts in Liverpool,
particularly the older inner-city neighbourhoods, which are dominated by pre-1919 terraced buildings,
have been characterised by low demand, high vacancy levels and poor living conditions. The last
Census in 2001 showed that the cross-tenure vacancy levels in the city exceeded 18,600 dwellings (9%
of the housing stock), as a result of economic and population decline over the previous fifty years.
Furthermore, an above-average proportion of all dwellings were classed as unfit (2006:
Liverpool 10.3% of stock, England 4.2% of stock). This means that they fail to meet one
or more of the standard criteria. The criteria include adequate lighting, heating and
ventilation; an adequate supply of clean water; satisfactory facilities for cooking food;
and a suitably-located toilet, and bath or shower (UK Office for National Statistics 2008a).
This applied especially to the social rented housing market. In 2004, 43% of all social
housing was not of a decent standard and did not meet the current statutory minimum
standard for housing. Furthermore, these dwellings were not in a reasonable state of
repair, had no adequate modern facilities and services, or did not provide a sufficient
degree of thermal comfort (LCC 2006a). In 2001, 27% of all dwellings in Liverpool had
no central heating (LCC 2001). A stock condition survey in 2004 calculated that it would
cost £760 million over the next 30 years to bring all dwellings up to a decent standard.
In addition, particularly in the social housing sector, there is a lack of housing which
provides accessibility for people with mobility needs, including wheelchair users (LCC
2006a).

Liverpoo

Altogether, Liverpool is characterised by an unbalanced and highly polarised housing market. Many areas with
empty houses coexist with high-demand residential areas. On the one hand, there are parts of the city which have

been experiencing low (and in some cases rapidly falling) prices, high turnover and increasing vacancy rates; on

the other hand there are new sub-markets which are thriving. Whereas, for example, the City Centre North has

suffered massive depopulation, with the loss of 80-90% of its residents over the past 50 years, other residential

districts have done far better: new homes have appeared in the city centre and at the waterfront, and other areas
have developed steadily or have grown, as a result of an increasing concentration of younger and mobile age
groups.

The living conditions in many residential areas in Liverpool are not in line with the city’s stated future objective of being a “Premier European City”. Liverpool City Council recognises the necessity of
providing homes to match the aspirations of people in the 21st century. The aim is to encourage

inhabitants to remain in the city, to work there, and to play a role in improving the economy of
the city. The Council stresses the importance of housing market restructuring and neighbourhood

renewal. In addition, it has underlined the need to create a “Living, Green and Sustainable City”, as well
as good housing conditions, for successful future-orientated urban development. The City Council has
therefore agreed on “Key Strategic Targets” to bring the entire housing stock up to a decent condition.
Most of this improvement will take place in deprived areas and will address the needs of vulnerable
households. One major aim is to reduce the vacancy levels across all types of housing from 9% to 5%
by 2010 (LCC 2006a).

Info-box: Housing market research in Liverpool and Merseyside
To make sure that its housing strategy is backed up by hard facts, Liverpool has had its own housing market research programme since 1999. The City
Council worked with the University of Birmingham’s Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (CURS) as well as with other consultants, and by 2003, a
total of nine reports had been published. The studies focus on different thematic and geographic aspects, and are very important in designing and implementing Liverpool’s housing strategies (Nevin et al. 2001). In addition, in 2007, Fordham Research was commissioned to carry out a Housing Needs
Assessment. This looks at the housing situation, housing preferences and future housing demands, and further supports the Council in its housing and
planning strategies (LCC 2007c).
For more information: http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Housing/Housing_research/index.asp.

Because housing markets do not operate solely within individual local authority
boundaries, there is also a strategic housing and planning research programme for
the whole Merseyside metropolitan area. Studies include the Housing Demand Study
(2003), the Housing Capacity Study (2004), the Social Housing Demand Study (2005)
and the Black and Other Racial Minorities Housing Needs & Aspiration Study (2005)
(LCC 2006a). These reports provide an important basis for the creation of the Housing
Strategy for the Liverpool City Region, which consists of thirteen local authorities (LCC
2007d).
For more information: http://www.merseyside.org.uk/displaypage.asp?page=117.

68 69

programmes and action plans, for both housing sectors (social and private), and also for different
housing zones in the city. In particular, the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI), focusing on the
inner city, is very important for Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing restructuring activities. In this area, there are 150,000
inhabitants, and 76,000 properties. 80% of these properties are pre-1919 terraced houses, and most
of them are characterised by a high level of unfitness and disrepair (LCC 2003, LCC 2007b). The aim
is to restructure the housing market by the extensive clearance and redevelopment of whole areas.
This involves the purchase of abandoned and unwanted empty homes. These will either be renovated
and sold, or demolished and replaced with new homes, through public/private partnerships (e.g.
Registered Social Landlords - RSLs), funded by a variety of sources.
Another programme is the more socially orientated Local Neighbourhoods Renewal Strategy (LNRS). This deals
with the transformation of the most deprived areas, in terms of closing the gap between the poorest and the most
prosperous neighbourhoods. Five Neighbourhood Renewal Areas (NRAs) were identified, characterised by a faster
population decline than the average for the city overall. In 2000, the Neighbourhood Renewal Areas covered 55%
of Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total population. Now, these areas have their own Cluster Strategies and Neighbourhood Action
Plans, to ensure more intensive and comprehensive support. The aim is to develop a robust social and economic
infrastructure, with good quality health, education and transport, safe and high quality physical and social
environments, and decent housing.
In response to demographic change, it is a major challenge to deliver housing quality and choice to Liverpoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s
diverse and complex pattern of communities and vulnerable groups. To achieve its aims, Liverpool City Council
and its partners have created a number of special programmes. These include the Five Year Supporting People
Programme, the Black and Racial Minority Housing Strategy, the Homelessness Strategy and the Fuel Poverty and
Warm Home Strategy.
In summary, during recent years, the condition of the housing in many parts of the
city has improved significantly. But it is estimated that restructuring the entire housing
market will take 15-20 years. Finally, it is worth noting that the housing restructuring
and neighbour hood renewal process in Liverpool and Merseyside are monitored
intensively (see info-box), for evaluation and further improvement.

9

The Key Strategic Targets mentioned above set the context for diversified housing objectives,

Information taken from Liverpool City Council 2006: Housing Strategy Statement 2005-2008. Liverpool (www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-66883.pdf, data as of 2002, date of last access 20/08/2008).

How does the City of Liverpool deal with demographic changes in the field of
housing? 9

5_Comparisons, conclusions
and recommendations
5.1_Comparative results
The main constitutive characteristics of urban demographic change are:
> ageing caused by low or “lowest-low fertility” and an increasing life expectancy
> quantitatively: an increasing dominance of smaller households, especially a growing number of one-person households
> qualitatively: the appearance of new household types, a fluidity in household formation and increasing housing mobility
> migration flows in terms of international immigration and emigration as well as in-migration and out-migration to and from
cities
> urban shrinkage in terms of declining population: at different rates, depending on the context
> multi-scale disparities (inner-EU, inter- and intraregional, inter- and intra-urban).
In this study, we investigated these issues and their impact on housing for five European cities. All cities were described
and evaluated according to the same design, with a specific focus on the indicators selected in advance. Table 5.1.1
provides an overview of the local specifics. For each city, a different pattern is seen. Quantitative population development
differs from small growth to dramatic loss. In all cities, ageing and an increase in the number of households are ongoing.
Regarding the average household size, all five cities are experiencing a downward trend. Ethnic diversity is increasing
in Leipzig, Bologna and Liverpool, in terms of a growing number of foreign inhabitants and more ethnic groups living
alongside each other. In Brno, the social and spatial integration of the Roma people is a specific issue. Housing shortage
is a decisive feature in Łódź and Bologna, and is likely to increase further. In Brno, a housing shortage prevails to a certain
degree in specific housing market segments. Suburbanisation continues in all the cities, but to varying extents: whereas in
Brno and Bologna there is a growing tendency for suburbanisation, in Leipzig the process has slowed down. The last line
of the table points to selected local specifics.
Table 5.1.1_Comparison of the cities with regard to recent demographic and housing market trends

When looking at the cities in more detail, we can detect varying changes in the number of inhabitants in Leipzig, Brno and Łódź.
The time span, the extent, and the reasons are different. Liverpool and Leipzig have been shrinking for decades; Brno saw a decline
in population particularly in the 1990s; and Łódź has faced population decline since the late 1980s, but to a much higher
extent than Brno. At present, Leipzig is experiencing population stabilisation caused by in-migration. In contrast, Brno is seeing an
increasing birth rate and decreasing out-migration. In the case of Łódź, the emigration to other countries in Western Europe is
important, but reliable data is not available.
Regarding the average age of the population, all cities show a significant increase. The cities are therefore in
line with the overall European trend. But in all five cities, the trend towards an older age profile is modified
by a growing number of students, since all are important university towns. This rejuvenation is especially
visible in selected areas which are favoured residential districts for students. In some cities this trend is
strengthened by the in-migration of young families, couples and other types of household, for example,
in Bologna and Leipzig. Inner-city residential areas, offering appropriate housing in reasonable condition,
combined with urban amenities, are particularly characterised by the trend towards reurbanisation.
All these different demographic trends, as well as the broader socio-economic processes, have contributed to a significant
increase in the number of households: in all five cities this was mainly due to the growing number (and growing share) of oneperson households. In quantitative and qualitative terms, this transformation of household numbers, sizes and structures brings
about important consequences for the local housing markets.
In terms of international immigration, even though the main migration flows are
into the capital cities and their metropolitan areas, for four out of our five case study
cities, the impact of immigration is noticeable. In Leipzig, Bologna and Brno the
picture varies. Leipzig faces a fast growth of ethnic communities but the absolute
share of foreign nationals is still relatively low. In Bologna, legal and illegal
immigrants arrive from across the Mediterranean Sea. In Brno, east European
immigrants have enlarged and diversified the existing ethnic minorities. For
Liverpool, ethnic diversity has always been an important issue, whereas in Łódź, it
is not a topic.
In all cities but Leipzig, housing shortage is a serious problem. In Brno the problem seems to have
decreased in the past few years. In both Liverpool and Łódź, many residential buildings have had to be
demolished, because they were in such a poor state of repair. But after demolition, new housing
construction has started immediately. The Leipzig housing market is dominated by a surplus of supply that
is likely to continue, even though in some sectors in the near future, supply may only just meet demand:
housing in Leipzig is being demolished but is not being replaced; and because of the long-term negative
population projections, the present plans for demolition will increase further. Thus, the phenomenon of
‘life-limited neighbourhoods’ will become a typical feature of the urban landscape, at least in some parts
of Leipzig.

Taking into account broader regional developments, ongoing suburbanisation also needs to be
highlighted. In three of the five cities, it plays an important role in urban development. Suburbanisation is
still a significant process in Bologna, which traditionally has a predominance of owner-occupied housing.
Suburbanisation is also still an important trend in Brno, the process started here at exactly the time that
it slowed down in Leipzig, in 1999/2000. In Liverpool, suburbanisation has a long history and is currently
stable. The extent of residential suburbanisation is determined by economic factors, and has to be tackled
within a regional context. Moreover, demographic change will not stop at the city limits. Suburban
areas will also face ageing and a reduction of household size in the future. Potentially, these demographic
changes in terms of ageing and smaller households will be a limiting factor in further suburbanisation.

5.2_Conclusions
On the basis of the comparative evaluation and interpretation of the data,
the following general conclusions can be made:
- The longevity (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;persistenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) of the physical structure of the cities (urban fabric, housing stock)
contrasts with the rapid demographic changes in the urban population. There is therefore a
permanent need for adaptation and reconstruction.
- Households are a major, and so far under-estimated, driver for change in the housing market, in
terms of demographics. The specific composition of households and their demands decide future
requirements in the housing sector.
- The downsizing of households in all age groups has consequences for the demand for housing as well
as for housing-related services.
- The prevailing demographic feature for European cities is ageing. Future older inhabitants may well
have residential patterns that are different from those of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s older people. Already today, older
people are more mobile and more active in shaping their housing situations, and are less likely to
move to special homes for the elderly than previous generations of 60+.
- Dealing with the interrelationships between demographic change and housing requires multiscale approaches. The spatial aspects include entire cities and agglomerations as well as specific
neighbourhoods and blocks.
- Timing is also important because of the continuing emergence of new living and housing
arrangements. Both households and individuals tend to spend less time in fixed types of living
arrangements, and therefore the number and diversity of housing arrangements in a lifetime is
increasing. As a result, housing needs differentiate, too.

72 73

- Suburbanisation processes depend on specific local circumstances in terms of timing and scope.
Demographic change influences and limits the level of suburbanisation and its characteristics. As the
costs of suburban living are likely to rise (energy, transport etc.), suburbia may, in the future, face outmigration and ageing and may become a less attractive place to live, with declining property values.
- In the inner cities, in addition to traditional core families, there is a growing number of non-traditional
household types. Their housing demands vary greatly. Families with dependent children, for example,
are looking for housing which provides a combination of urban amenities and suburban housing
qualities.
- Regarding the temporal effects of demographic change, a sudden drop in the birth rate, or a strong
out-migration during a certain period, can cause long-term demographic mismatches, even after
several decades.
- Diverse patterns of immigration and emigration, and of in-migration and out-migration, are affecting
the housing market. According to the specific situation, the processes have different implications.
For example, the socio-spatial integration of ethnic minorities (e. g. Roma people) needs particular
consideration.
- H ighlighting the demographic perspective does not mean that the socio-economic background of
residents is being ignored. Also the specific local context has to be considered.

5.3_Recommendations for action
Each aspect of demographic change, and, even more importantly, the interconnections and interrelationships between the
various demographic processes, lead to radical consequences for the housing market. Furthermore, the infrastructures of whole
districts or cities are affected. There is a need for architectural, spatial, supply-related, technical, social, cultural and fiscal adaptation,
to deal with the changes. It is also important to recognise that demographic change can cause alterations in the usage densities
for existing housing stock and services, as well as generating demand for new housing and services.
Policies that aim to respond to demographic change are even more challenged by the increasing mobility and fluidity of
households. New household types in particular are often only transitory users of urban space, and are likely to change their
structure, size and place of residence quite frequently. Demographic change is not a phase that leads to new fixed structures,
but an ever-ongoing process. One of the basic characteristics of the structures that are evolving, regardless of whether they are
households, housing markets or residential patterns, is their flexibility and transience. This results in increasing social and
demographic fragmentation in the urban space.
In order to respond to these challenges and to enable these topics to attain a more
prominent position on the European agenda, we provide recommendations, as follows, on
three levels: for EU policies, for future research, and for cities.

Recommendations for EU policies
1_ A
geing and its social consequences need more attention in European programmes and funding.
Population ageing represents the key European mega-trend, also in the cities. Higher life
expectancy leads to a growing group of old and very old people, both female and male. At the
same time, family ties become weaker and family networks are spatially spread more widely,
because of increasing residential mobility and migration processes.
2_ A
n increased risk of poverty of older people is a Europe-wide matter which also has to be considered at the local level, in terms of quality of life and appropriate housing. But many cities are
overstretched by this new challenge. EU support is vital, in terms of knowledge-exchange on
best practices and also in terms of specific funding.
3_ Urban shrinkage needs to be accepted as one development trajectory just like urban growth.
Already for many years, cities have been facing periods of population decline, in addition to eras
of expansion. However, due to strong competition between cities, the growth paradigm is still
the predominant pattern steering the urban development strategies. Consequently, shrinking
cities now need even more attention and support for their specific demands in terms of policies
and governance.
4_ The population decline in many European cities requires urban planning and policies to be
rethought. Vacant housing in particular might well become an increasing phenomenon, since
building activities depend largely on the interests of private investors and developers. In some
places, vacant housing in suburbia will evolve as a new challenge.
5_ E U policies need to take an anticipating (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;counter-cyclicalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) approach and tackle issues which
are apparently not yet critical (e.g. ageing suburbia). In addition, the increased availability of
demographic prognoses highlights the importance of paying attention to the long-term effects
and possible future challenges. Here, the demographic debate converges with the challenge of
sustainability.

Recommendations for future research
The research on demographic change and its impacts on housing is still at an initial stage. To deal with the demographic
challenges and to answer related questions on the European scale, detailed comparative and cross-cultural analyses and
evaluations are necessary. These will contribute to the understanding of demographic change and housing, as well as providing
added value for European cities. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that comparative studies need not necessarily be on a
large scale, especially when new phenomena are to be explored in depth. More small- and medium-sized research projects,
limited to a comparison of just 2-4 cases, are needed. Larger projects run the risk of being very costly, and do not necessarily
provide a more thorough insight.

74 75

In our view, there is a need for more research into the following areas:
1_ A
geing and housing: This topic has become prominent in recent research, but studies have mainly
focused on the perspective of older people themselves and their perceived needs if they intend to
age ‘in place’. Investigations from the perspective of cities and neighbourhoods are needed.
Relevant research questions are for example: What new residential patterns will evolve? What
conflicting priorities are to be expected and where? Will the next generation of older people have
the same mobility as today’s generation? Also, more differentiated investigations of changing
housing and service needs are necessary.
2_ N
on-traditional household types: A deeper insight is needed into the development and behaviour
of new household types and their impact on the housing market, not least for landlords and housing
companies to ensure they can plan appropriately.
Relevant research questions are for example: What types of households will occur and when? And
what kind of housing mobility and socio-spatial patterns can be expected?
3_ H
ousing flexibility: It will be important to understand in more detail the dynamics involved in
matching housing availability to changing household types.
Relevant research questions are for example: How flexible can the housing market be? How easily
can available dwellings be adapted to meet changing demand driven by changing household
arrangements? What are the expected implications for the urban fabric?
4_ C
ity ‘perforation’ and ‘life-limited neighbourhoods’: New spatial structures in the cities as a result of
rapid population change and changing housing needs should be considered as an opportunity to
improve housing conditions for a range of household types and age groups.
5_ N
ew migration patterns: Immigration and emigration together with in- and out-migration influence
the local housing situation. More research is needed on patterns of seasonal, short-term and
mid-term job-related migration, and the consequences of this.
6_ U
nused potential of multi- and interdisciplinary approaches: If thematic lines of demographic change
and housing are integrated with multi- or even interdisciplinary approaches, this would provide
a more comprehensive picture of urban change. Relevant research topics relate, for example, to
the relationship between demographic change and the labour market, demographic change and
migration or demographic change and health care.
7_ D emographic criteria as part of EU decision-making: In making decisions on the distribution of EU
structural funds, demographic criteria should be used alongside economic criteria. Research is
needed to support decision-making processes.

Recommendations to the cities
Until now, there have been relatively few opportunities for cities to learn from the experiences of others, in terms of dealing with
demographic change and its impact on housing. This is partly due to the complexities of the demographic processes, with their
interdependencies and changing dynamics, and partly because demographic change has only recently been given prominence.
In future, there needs to be an increased sharing of information: both on good and poor practice examples, in terms of lessons
learned.
As concrete measures we propose:
1_ D
evelopment of local monitoring systems: Local monitoring of housing markets, intra-urban mobility
and changing household structures is needed to keep track of the dynamics of residential patterns
as well as changing demand and supply. This will provide a more realistic basis for urban planning,
including decision-making on social and technical infrastructure development.
> Good practice example: Leipzig: annual housing monitoring since 2001.
2_ A
ge mainstreaming: As with gender mainstreaming, awareness of the specific needs and
circumstances of older people should become a matter of course, thereby encouraging all age
groups live alongside each other with respect. Appropriate training and education of municipal
staff will be necessary. (The authors came across the ‘age main-streaming’ phrase when looking at
demographic change in the Czech Republic.)
3_ F ostering communication between cities and between neighbourhoods: The aim is to learn from
the successes and failures of others (good practices and poor practices), and also to compare
common aspects and differences between cities and neighbourhoods.
> Good practice example: Cooperation between Brno and Utrecht in the field of housing 1999-2002
(Project “Housing, an integral approach” on the city scale and also for two
selected districts of Brno).
4_ Building up local knowledge clusters: Knowledge clusters should be established in order to produce
synergies in pursuing common urban development targets, and to keep track of exactly what is
going on in each city (projects, initiatives etc.). Possible membership includes administrative bodies,
scientists, NGO’s, private enterprises, etc. The success of a knowledge cluster depends on a clear and
transparent definition of its aims and resources.
5_ C
apitalising on the resources of publicly-financed scientific institutions: Close cooperation between the
municipalities on the one hand and local universities and scientific institutes on the other, generates
mutual benefits in terms of support for problem solving and development strategies.
> Good practice example: Liverpool and Leipzig have both continuously cooperated with scientific
institutions over the long term.

76 77

6_ D
eliberate distinction between population growth and economic development: Successful economic
development alone does not guarantee a stable or growing population. The question is: which
amenities can cities with a poor economic base offer to inhabitants? Promoting the advantages of
a city is essential to attracting in-migration and to retaining its inhabitants.
> Good practice example: Liverpool: European Capital of Culture 2008
Łódź: reuse of industrial heritage for new housing (“Scheibler-Lofts”)
7_ Involving expert groups: An independent expert advisory board can give helpful advice and
recommendations to the municipalities in terms of applying for EU funds as well as on how best to
make effective and efficient use of the funds. Furthermore, they can develop proposals that deal
with specific issues, independently of local political constraints or current priorities. These proposals
can form part of innovative future development strategies.
8_ Use of the political arena to support immigrant communities: Formal political institutions are
needed in order to raise public awareness of the problems of immigrants in their daily lives,
and to achieve solutions and improvements.
> Good practice example: Bologna: forum of foreign civic associations (immigrants "parliament")

All the above recommendations can be seen as concrete ways in which the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, an EU
document passed in May 2007, can be implemented. The charter now needs live policies and actions. The aim of the Charter is to
serve as a basis for steering urban policy and development. A key focus will be the challenges of demographic changes and their
interdependencies with housing.
In our view, demographic change is not just one factor
among others, but a crucial framework condition of
future societal and urban development. Therefore, broader
strategies for sustainable development are needed, in
order to tackle the effects of this multi-scale process,
which depends on so many other socio-economic
factors. In addition, demographic change impacts on
economic processes as well as on social and ecological
issues. Sustainable development of the housing sector
needs to take into account new social and generational
tensions, ageing processes and their consequences, new
costs caused by the need to adapt the infrastructure, as
well as the ecological and economic effects of vacant
housing. It should also take into account possible future
opportunities of these processes.

At a high level, data capture and research methods are the main preconditions for achieving convincing

research results. It is essential to check the applicability and the content of traditional data sources (e.g.
from censuses) and also their lack of data. Furthermore, the appropriateness and transparency of the
methods used has to be guaranteed. As already mentioned in Chapter 3, the quality of the data used for
each investigated city differs significantly, in terms of availability and reliability. To shed more light on this,
the data sources for two of the case study cities, Leipzig and Brno, will be described in more detail.
In both cities, annual population data are available. Usually such data is based on census
updates. Yet, in the case of Leipzig, the last population census was almost 30 years ago,
in 1981 (and the last housing census in 1995). So, the municipal statisticians face the
demanding task of maintaining a variety the population data and keeping it up-to-date. In
contrast, in the Czech Republic, the last census was carried out in 2001, as in most other
European countries (also in Poland, Italy and the UK). Therefore, there is plenty of detailed
demographic data for that particular year (especially on the number and structure of
households). However, the figures have not been updated since then.

Census data provides a regular up-to-date inventory of the population and its age,
household and educational composition at a certain moment in time. Census data, as a
major source of demographic information, significantly differ from longitudinal studies,
which involve repeated observations of the same variables over long periods of time,

often many decades. These are used for monitoring fertility, mortality, marriage or
migration, which demographers also need in order to explain or forecast population trends.
Census data are also needed on a regular basis, to verify and correct the data based on
registration, which becomes less and less accurate over time. An appropriate interpretation
of the period between two censuses is difficult, because general methodological questions
cannot be answered by means of census data: for example whether changes between year
t1 and t2 occurred in a linear way, and how to integrate probable ups and downs during
the time interval covered. However, as annual small-scale and detailed information is not
available in most countries, census data is indispensable for housing research and housing
policies. As already stated above, this represents a problem for German cities, because the
last census for western Germany took place in 1987, and for eastern Germany it was 1981,
with a housing census in 1995.
In terms of the quantitative dimension of urban demographic change in
the inter-census periods, the population registers can be used for Leipzig
(run by the municipality) and Brno (run by the regional statistical office).
For Brno, there is a further population data source: this is available from the
Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic (ISEO register). However, there are
significant differences between the two datasets, and it is unclear which one
is correct.

84 85

These differences in data generation and availability are crucial, because in many cases they
prohibit direct comparison.
In consultations with experts, in particular regarding the different methodological
ap-proaches, it seems that there are three possible reasons for the differences between
the two sets of figures. Firstly, there may have been an undervaluation of the population

at home (and covered by ISEO). Thirdly, there was a problem with recording the exact
numbers of foreigners. Among Czech experts, there is a broad debate about the ‘right’
statistical numbers, and about the possible causes for the large differences. In the case of
Brno, the difference amounts to some 66,000 people by the end of 2006 (!); but there is
no clear answer10. The problem is a structural one. Normally, in-migrants should register
at their new address after moving (compulsory registration), but often they fail to register.
This applies to most students and young professionals, who are often still registered at their
parents’ home. Moreover, many out-migrants do not announce their change of residence
either. Hence very often, in economically prosperous cities the number of inhabitants is
underestimated; and in declining areas the population is overestimated. One sign of an
underestimation in Brno is that the capacity of the sewage plant, which was designed for
500,000 people, is fully utilised! The general message is that population data should be
treated with caution.
Problems of data generation and comparability are also found at the European level. For
example, even with such respected data collection projects as the Urban Audit, there are
difficulties. This is due to the fact that the sources of the information in the audit are not
available. To take just one example for Leipzig and Brno: the 2001 Urban Audit figure for
Leipzig’s total population (493,052) is taken from the city’s statistical yearbook (and, thus,
the population register). In contrast, the number for Brno (376,172) is taken from the Czech
Republic’s 2001 census and is therefore based on a completely different methodology of
data collection.

10

Secondly, there is an uncertain number of Czech citizens living abroad but still registered

We are grateful for the explanations and advice by Petr Klusáček (Institute for Geonics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Branch Brno) concerning these data issues.

in the last census 2001 (of some 130,000 to 150,000 people for the whole Czech Republic).

The Urban Audit is an initiative of the Directorate-General for
Regional Policy at the Euro-pean Commission (DG Regio), in
cooperation with EUROSTAT and national statistical offices. It
provides reliable and comparable information on cities in the
European Union and in EU candidate countries. The Urban
Audit consists of demography and housing indicators which
have been calculated by Eurostat. The Urban Audit is a
response to the growing demand for an assessment of life in
European towns and cities. It allows a comparison of towns
and cities by regional, national and European agencies, as well
as between the towns and cities themselves. For example,
comparisons can be made in terms of geographical position
within

Europe

(e.g.

central/peripheral;

North/South),

economic, economic activity, employment, public transport,
and educational achievements. There is also scope for
comparing disparities within towns and cities, which can be
very useful, sometimes crucial, for deciding policy measures.
Time coverage

Addendu

Urban Audit

Urban Audit data has been collected at five points in time: 1991 (a pilot project looking at only some of

the variables); 1996 (a further pilot with only some of the variables) and 2001 (full coverage); 2004 (the first
full-scale European Urban Audit). 2006/7 saw the second full-scale Urban Audit.
For further information: http://www.urbanaudit.org.

86 87

7.2_Different definitions
of “household”
As mentioned in the main report, the definitions of key indicators differ. For example, the term
“household” varies across the five investigated European countries. The main source of these
definitions (apart from the Czech Republic) is “Housing Statistics in the European Union”, 2004.
To include the local understanding of the term ‘household’, national sources are also used.
Germany
A household consists of all persons who are living together and run a household i.e.
who are financing their living costs jointly. With reference to the Federal Statistical
Office, a household is defined as a living arrangement which can be a person living
alone or a unit of persons living together and sharing a large part of their living costs
(Statistisches Bundes¬amt 2003 and Housing Statistics 2004, 99).
Czech Republic
The Czech Statistical Office differentiates between three types of households:
1_dwelling households (bytové domácnosti): created by all the people living in one dwelling:
their number is therefore always identical with the number of dwellings;
2_economic households (hospodařící domácnosti): created by people living together in one
dwelling who share basic food expenditure, housing costs etc. (subtenants and their families
create separate economic households);
3_census households (cenzové domácnosti): created by people living together in one dwelling
who are either blood relatives or other relations: four types exist: a) complete census
household = complete “family” (with or without children); b) non-complete census
household = non-complete family; c) non-family census household; d) census house-holds
of individuals.
The number of census households is larger than the number of economic households; in turn, the number
of economic households is higher than the number of dwelling households.
Data on these types of households are only collected and generated in the censuses. In this report,
household data always refers to census households: this is also common usage in the Czech Republic’s
statistics (ČSÚ 2003)

Addendu

Italy

The term ‘household’ is not used in Italy. The common term is family (famiglia). This is
understood to be a group of persons linked by bonds of marriage, kinship, affinity,

adoption, guardianship or affection: they live together in the same dwelling and therefore
have their habitual residence in the same municipality (even if they are not yet registered

in that municipality’s register of inhabitants). A family may also consist of only one person
(Housing Statistics 2004, 99).
In Bologna, two household definitions are used:
1_famiglia which means people living together in a social and economic unit;

2_ménage which relates to housing arrangements and which might comprise one or more
famiglia that live in or share one dwelling (Comune di Bologna 2007c).
Poland

In Poland a private household has two possible definitions:

1. a one-person household i.e. a person who lives alone in a separate

housing unit or who occupies, as a lodger, a separate room (or rooms)
of a housing unit but does not join with any of the other occupants

of the housing unit to form part of a multi-person household as
defined below;

2. a multi-person household i.e. a group of two or more persons

who combine to occupy the whole or part of a housing unit and to
provide themselves with food and possibly other essentials for living.
Members of the group may pool their incomes to a greater or lesser
extent (Housing Statistics 2004, 100).
United Kingdom
A household is defined as a person living alone or a group of people who
either share at least one meal a day or share the living accommodation. The
determining factors are meals and accommodation-sharing. The relationship
between the people in the household is irrelevant (Housing Statistics 2004,
100).

88 89

7.3_Tables
a_Table of general features of the investigated cities, 2001

Leipzig

Brno

Lodz

Bologna

Liverpool

493,0524

373,2721

786,52613

378,3565

439,2008

Births

3,7734

3,2401

5,56111

2,7739

4,9158

Deaths

5,382

3,963

11

10,841

4,840

5,1758

Natural balance

-1,6094

-7231

-5,2811

-2,0679

-2608

1,657.113

1,635.513

2,671.713

2,632.813

3,923.913

Average age

43.22

41.53

41.1 12

47.6 5

not available

Average household size

1.81

2.263

2.2413

2.0913

2.2710

272,10013

151,7243

351,95213

185,56921

187,86510

Share of one-person households 45.1

33.6

35.4

41.4

36.910

Marriages

1,3334

2,0591

3,5196

1,28817

not available

Divorces

902

1,284

1,801

45516

not available

POPULATION
Total population

4

1

9

Population density total resident population
per km²

Total number of households

13

13

4

13

1

13

6

21

In-migrants

21,365

3,180

3,794

11,346

15,3008

Out-migrants

4

19,912

5,931

4,515

10,447

18,4008

Net migration

1,4534

-2,7511

-72111

-6220

-3,2008

Life expectancy at birth

77.9

76.2

72.3

80.8

not available

317,43913

162,17613

329,7196

194,86222

not available

41.44

18.013

21.213

40.213

not available

17.313

3.213

4.713

3.0 – 4.023

9.014

1,07413

not available

40413

not available

1,421213

1,47313

not available

35713

not available

99213

4

13

1
1

13

11
11

13

18
19

13

HOUSING
Dwellings
Average housing space
per person (m2)
Vacancy rate
(Share of empty dwellings in %)
Average price per m2
for an apartment (€)
Average price per m2
for a house (€)

TRAINING and EDUCATION
Total number of students

32,954

45,3311

94,3537

99,13015

37,74810

Unemployment rate

19.74

8.6 1

22.113

4.513

11.113

ENVIRONMENT
Proportion of the area
in green space

49.813

31.913

8.013

1.113

28.513

Sources: see below

The main data source for the target year 2001 is Urban Audit with the reference number 13. The other
footnotes describe data which could not be found in Urban Audit but are taken directly from national or
municipal statistical data sources. In addition we checked the data found in Urban Audit with respect to
their origins (see methodological remarks).

This publication is supported by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social
Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme was established to financially support the implementation
of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in the
Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in these
fields.
The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of
appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA
and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries.
To that effect, PROGRESS purports at:
·p
roviding analysis and policy advice on employment, social solidarity and gender equality policy
areas;
·m
onitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in employment,
social solidarity and gender equality policy areas;
·p
romoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and
priorities; and
· relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large.
For more information see:
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/progress/index_en.html

«The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission»

Demographic Change and Housing in European Cities

This report analyses cities’ responses to changes in the composition of the local population and to the specific challenge of changing household structures. In recent years, European households have become smaller, older and more diverse. This change has been coupled with a response from local authorities to ensure an appropriate housing supply and adequate housing conditions for a variety of different social groups. Conducted by UFZ – Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, this report looks at the following cities: Leipzig, Brno, Lodz, Bologna and Liverpool